"We're all searching for answers"

Post Reply New Topic

Can chocolate be bad? I don't think so. Therefore chocolate is good, that's a fact.

Ew, chocolate?

I'd rather chew on coffee-beans.

Like I said, you're being daft

You are giving an opinion. Not a fact. The fact is, not everyone one likes chocolate. Therefore you are wrong, end of, every time, there is no debate on this subject.

This thread has gone in an interesting direction. This discussion of the apparent "fact" that chocolate is good and the arguments presented are like a microcosm of the whole point of this thread. cw10 has made the distinction that what is clearly an opinion is actually a fact, not unlike the decision to believe in God as the ultimate answer. By simplifying the argument so, he has amusingly demonstrated the poor credibility of the theist position

I see the exact opposite. He did point out that our brains are wired to respond positively to chocolate, after all. Coming from an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that people respond to sweet-tasting foodstuffs and there is an evolutionary basis for such behavior. The fact that some people dislike chocolate demonstrates that a purely physical understanding cannot fully explain reality. It can only explain the purely physical domain of reality, which is not the only domain that exists.

But moreover, the conflation of types of value is a serious issue that most people take for granted these days. It has more of a basis in ethics than it does in questions of [a]theism, though.

Our brains are also "wired" to respond positively to heroin. Does that make it good? This line of reasoning is completely ridiculous

"Chocolate is good", "God made the universe", "Heroin is awesome", are all opinions

"God made the universe," if true, is a fact. If untestable, it is not an opinion, but it is also not a fact in the proper sense. It is of unknown objective value.

"God made the universe" is a hypothesis - a possible fact (though I'd argue not a very likely one). Without verification, it cannot be confirmed either way. It also requires some definition of "God".

Facts can be surprisingly slippery. "Bananas are yellow" might look quite simple, except what you're really saying is "the fruits of this particular genus of tree reflect light in this range of the electromagnetic spectrum, but not this range". You then need to identify that genus, which is a challenge in itself, especially since you can't simply say "trees that produce bananas". That would be a circular definition.

But, worse, our fact is wrong. Some bananas are not yellow. So we must amend our fact to "some bananas are yellow", or more accurately "at least one banana is yellow". And is this fact still true if bananas become extinct?

Given how complicated even a simple fact like this can be, "chocolate is good" is a lot more difficult to factualise. "Chocolate produces feelings of pleasure in human brains" is as good as we can get, and even this needs work - it doesn't in all humans, we need to define pleasure, we need to define chocolate (white, dark, milk, plain cocoa beans? Animal or vegetable fats?) and we need to define humans too. "I like particular kinds of chocolate" is a fact. But not a very useful one.

Maximally great does not necessarily mean all encompassing, there is a serious equivocation going on here.

Sex is good. Is that a fact or an opinion? It's neither. It's a truth.

This is your chocolate and brightness argument all over again, with the exact same flaw. A truth / fact is something like: Sex is (a) another word for sexual reproduction, (b) the sum of all gender-specific characteristics in members of sexually dimorphic species, and (c) all sexually motivated behavior that involves physical contact with the genitals of another person or animal.

I've italicized the last bit because it should give you a strong hint as to why sex is not objectively good. "Sex" includes activities such as sexual animal and child abuse. But even if we limit the definition to consensual activities between adult humans, many asexual people will still disagree that sex is good. Most humans happen to enjoy consensual sex, but that doesn't make their opinions and feelings an objective truth.

More obfuscating, how droll. Changing chocolate to sex does not suddenly validate your argument

Christian "reason" is a pervertion of reason. They are usually just proselytizing and buying time for that activity by pushing words around. If you catch them doing it they might even admit that they are called to preach and so that's what they are doing. Their "reasoning" is just word games to keep you listening while they attempt to snare the slow witted or the previously indocrinated who might be enticed back.

I think it's just deceptive and it makes my skin crawl to see them try to do it.

Are facts always facts? Truths are always truths.

"Sex is good" is an opinion, even according to your holy book.

Gay sex is still sex, and according to your religion anyone who practices gay sex should be killed.

So, bacteria and plants can have opinions? "Good" is not merely an opinion. A successful way of reproduction can be defined as good without opinion. You could have a good meal, whether or not it tastes good. If it makes you healthy that's good, and that's truth and a fact.