Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, you appear to equate a disagreement over the application of a moral code to moral relativity. Also, your assertions here with respect to orthodox Christianity and Biblical hermeneutics present a potential sort of 'rabbit trail' to our discussion. My intention was to limit this to BASIC monotheism. Common elements in my view would basically encompass the Ten Commandments as a fixed common code of moral absolutes.
Perhaps if I present my view of the definition of moral relativity it might help to clarify things. Moral relativity would fall into line with the those who deny the existence of absolute truth and morality. In other words, that truth and morality are reduced to personal preference. Hence the saying: 'What's true and moral for you, is true and moral for you and whats true and moral for me is true and moral for me.' Relativity denies the existence of any a priori absolutes.
Basic theism does not deny the existence of moral absolutes. I would suggest that it does quite the opposite.
tigetmax24,
I don't intend to speak for Boxcar here, but the discussion has intrigued me. I think the issue of transcendent, relative morality vs absolute morality is actually a pretty significant difference.
From my perspective absolute morality means that all actors involved are held to not only the same set of definitions for right and wrong, but the same restrictions. A morality that condemns an action for one person, and sanctions it for another is not absolute. An example of this is a system in which it is immoral for a slave to kill, but not for their master. In an absolute morality, murder is murder. Are we in agreement so far?
If we have a transcendent lawgiver, who defines morality, it can be defined in one of two ways. It can either be independent of the lawgiver, or it can be dependent on the lawgiver. If the transcendent morality is independent of the lawgiver, then it means that the lawgiver must adhere to the law, or be immoral, and its behavior is constrained if it is to be moral.
If however, the morality is defined such that any possible action of the lawgiver is by definition moral, then the moral code is not absolute, and while transcendent is relative. This is because to be absolute, the lawgiver must also be constrained by the moral code.
This is why, like Boxcar, my experience is most Theists are in fact moral relativists. Instead of their morality being relative in comparison to other people, their morality is relative with respect to their deity. They have chosen to define good as whatever they ascribe to their deity.
When you are defining moral relativism, it appears that you are confining it to only human actors.
On a related note, I am not sure that I have ever seen a full definition of an absolute morality by any of its adherents. I certainly didn't have one when I was a believer. It is interesting to me that I was so willing to declare an absolute unchanging morality, when I couldn't define exactly what it was that was absolute. This is one of the reason so many of us non-theists (and even deists) are hesitant to adhere to an absolute, transcendent morality; no one has as of yet defined a consistent, comprehensive one to follow.
Does your personal "agnostic" view answer the question of origin??
My personal agnostic view does answer that question, but the answer is "We don't have enough information to know what the origin of the universe is."
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
You seem to be missing the primary point here...the basic reason why it's reasonable to posit a primary first cause agent is to avoid the illogical endless eternal repetition of cause and effect. It's the notion of a primary first cause agent that does not require a first cause which would be necessary to begin the chain of causes and effects that can be empirically verified.
You infer that any primary cause agent must also be assumed to have a cause. Why?
You are right that I was missing your primary point. That was a little sloppy writing on my part. Obviously, by definition a primary cause agent can't have a cause. I'm not used to using these terms in debate, so I apologize if it takes me a little longer to get to the point I'm trying to make.
I think it's more proper to say that the primary cause agent must either have came into existence on it's own or it had to have existed for ever, in one form or another.
Neither of those two possibilities are logical.
Yet whether one believes that the universe IS the primary cause agent, or whether one believes a god is the primary cause agent, we are still left with the same problem.
The "god" solution doesn't solve any problems that it doesn't also create. If one is to say, "it is logically impossible for anything to have always existed or came into being on it's own accord," they can't solve the riddle of the "origins of everything" by suggesting a god who has either always existed or came into being in it's own accord. That would violate the very principles that was deemed illogical and created the problem in the first place.
Normally, I don't classify the universe as a primary cause agent. I just say it either always existed or came into existence on it's own accord. But using the terms the way you do, I would say that it's not so much a question of whether there is a primary cause agent, but only a question of whether or not that primary cause agent is "god" or "the universe"
I think neither of those answers makes much sense. But I think the "universe" answer is slightly less unreasonable because we at least have good reason to believe the universe is real, wheres the god solution is unknown.
Looked at from a different angle: If a god were shown to exist, it would be more likely that he was the primary cause agent than any other alternative. But the existance of a primary cause does not suggest the existence of god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Again, you appear to equate a disagreement over the application of a moral code to moral relativity. Also, your assertions here with respect to orthodox Christianity and Biblical hermeneutics present a potential sort of 'rabbit trail' to our discussion. My intention was to limit this to BASIC monotheism. Common elements in my view would basically encompass the Ten Commandments as a fixed common code of moral absolutes.
Perhaps if I present my view of the definition of moral relativity it might help to clarify things. Moral relativity would fall into line with the those who deny the existence of absolute truth and morality. In other words, that truth and morality are reduced to personal preference. Hence the saying: 'What's true and moral for you, is true and moral for you and whats true and moral for me is true and moral for me.' Relativity denies the existence of any a priori absolutes.
Basic theism does not deny the existence of moral absolutes. I would suggest that it does quite the opposite.
You are correct that we have a disagreement over the application of those terms. I would like to discuss this more with you at some time, but as you may be implying, that's not really central to the discussion we are having at this time. We will end up spending a lot of time going off on that tagent if we don't stop here, so lets just save that discussion for another day. This thread is already becoming a multi-headed hydra that will be hard to tame, so we probably don't need to get into non-central points such as these - unless you want to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
"Do what you think is right" is most certainly NOT a tenet of basic theism.
This sounds more like a Jiminy Cricket sort of theology - "Let your conscience be your guide." More suggestive of moral relativity than objective morality I would think.
As per your definition of basic theism, there is no single agreed upon tenet of basic theism. One liberal form of basic theism could include the tenet "do what you think is right", and no other maxim.
If you want to change the definition of basic theism to include only certain types of moral codes and exclude others, then for the purposes of this debate I will agree to do so. But you will have to tell me what the moral code of basic theism's tenets are, so I will know what it is you are including and what it is you are excluding by the term. I take it you exclude forms of liberal theism, for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Yes, the old: "We create our own meaning" response seems to be the most popular among professing agnostics and atheists. However, it completely misses (or purposely avoids) the weight of the question:
Why is it logical to presume that we have ANY meaning if we are simply the chance product of some random chance occurrence somewhere in space time? If there is no God and no creation, how does one ascribe true meaning to anything? Why should I be convinced, under an atheistic model, that I have ANY intrinsic or inherent meaning to my existence?
I never said it was logical to presume that we have any meaning. In fact I said:
Quote:
In most respects, I believe that life has only the meaning we give to it....I don't believe I have pre-ordained purpose,...
I also said that was my world view, but there are others that believe differently.
I believe you only wanted to know what my world view is, but if you would like I will be happy to discuss what I know to be other logical positions that atheist and agnostics hold, which does include a meaning to life sans a god. It will lead us down a long path, but if you want to switch from my world view to some of the world views that other atheist and agnostics have, I will be willing.
But be advised, when it comes to the questions of truthfullness and coherency, I can only vouch for some of these views coherency, but not their truthfulness - since I have acknowledged that I don't believe those world views are "truthful."
My personal agnostic view does answer that question, but the answer is "We don't have enough information to know what the origin of the universe is."
Okay. So would you agree that your view really has no answer to the question of origin?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
I think it's more proper to say that the primary cause agent must either have came into existence on it's own or it had to have existed for ever, in one form or another.
Neither of those two possibilities are logical.
Can I get you to elaborate on why you think that the concept of an eternally existing first cause agent is illogical?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Yet whether one believes that the universe IS the primary cause agent, or whether one believes a god is the primary cause agent, we are still left with the same problem.
Everything that is empirically verified and observed points to contingency. Science and logic simply don't support the notion of observable effects that are not caused. Even people like Stephen Hawking assert that the universe had a beginning.
"Everything that BEGINS to exist, has a CAUSE."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
The "god" solution doesn't solve any problems that it doesn't also create. If one is to say, "it is logically impossible for anything to have always existed or came into being on it's own accord," they can't solve the riddle of the "origins of everything" by suggesting a god who has either always existed or came into being in it's own accord. That would violate the very principles that was deemed illogical and created the problem in the first place.
I would certainly agree with you here if your premise that ALL THINGS need a cause was logical. This is the precise reason that the notion of a primary first cause agent is logical...it posits a logical first cause to all of the effects that we are able to observe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Normally, I don't classify the universe as a primary cause agent. I just say it either always existed or came into existence on it's own accord. But using the terms the way you do, I would say that it's not so much a question of whether there is a primary cause agent, but only a question of whether or not that primary cause agent is "god" or "the universe"
I think neither of those answers makes much sense. But I think the "universe" answer is slightly less unreasonable because we at least have good reason to believe the universe is real, wheres the god solution is unknown.
Looked at from a different angle: If a god were shown to exist, it would be more likely that he was the primary cause agent than any other alternative. But the existence of a primary cause does not suggest the existence of god.
Science points to the universe as having a beginning. What does science inform us about the nature of a primary first cause agent? Allow me to suggest that science can't tell us anything about the nature of a primary first cause agent. Thus, it would appear that we are left with two options:
Logical speculation.
and
Revelation.
Is it possible that the Bible, the Quran and Torah reveal God as a first cause agent? Is it possible that one or more of these books gives us a true revelation of the nature and character of this first cause agent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
You are correct that we have a disagreement over the application of those terms. I would like to discuss this more with you at some time, but as you may be implying, that's not really central to the discussion we are having at this time. We will end up spending a lot of time going off on that tangent if we don't stop here, so lets just save that discussion for another day. This thread is already becoming a multi-headed hydra that will be hard to tame, so we probably don't need to get into non-central points such as these - unless you want to.
Agreed. I don't think we need necessarily to consider these topics as off limits as long as there is application to the basic point being discussed. However, it is all too easy to get side tracked on topics like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
As per your definition of basic theism, there is no single agreed upon tenet of basic theism. One liberal form of basic theism could include the tenet "do what you think is right", and no other maxim.
If you want to change the definition of basic theism to include only certain types of moral codes and exclude others, then for the purposes of this debate I will agree to do so. But you will have to tell me what the moral code of basic theism's tenets are, so I will know what it is you are including and what it is you are excluding by the term. I take it you exclude forms of liberal theism, for example.
I don't see any need to change our agreed upon definitions. Basic theism would logically encompass Judaism, Islam and Christianity. They all have the basic commonality of the Ten Commandments as a fixed code of moral absolutes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
I never said it was logical to presume that we have any meaning. In fact I said:
I also said that was my world view, but there are others that believe differently.
I'm well aware of what you stated. In what way is my response presumed to misrepresent or misstate your assertion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
I believe you only wanted to know what my world view is, but if you would like I will be happy to discuss what I know to be other logical positions that atheist and agnostics hold, which does include a meaning to life sans a god. It will lead us down a long path, but if you want to switch from my world view to some of the world views that other atheist and agnostics have, I will be willing.
But be advised, when it comes to the questions of truthfullness and coherency, I can only vouch for some of these views coherency, but not their truthfulness - since I have acknowledged that I don't believe those world views are "truthful."
With respect to PRACTICAL APPLICATION, your view is on par with the atheistic view. It rejects God as a reasonable explanation for anything. Again I ask, without God (a creator) how can there logically be any presumption of intrinsic meaning to our existence?
From my perspective absolute morality means that all actors involved are held to not only the same set of definitions for right and wrong, but the same restrictions. A morality that condemns an action for one person, and sanctions it for another is not absolute. An example of this is a system in which it is immoral for a slave to kill, but not for their master. In an absolute morality, murder is murder. Are we in agreement so far?
No. Morality, in and of itself, cannot condemn or sanction anything. When a moral absolute is transgressed, a righteous judge must decide what punishment, if any, should be instituted as a result of the transgression. It does absolutely nothing to alter the nature and intent of the specific objective moral prohibition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
If we have a transcendent lawgiver, who defines morality, it can be defined in one of two ways. It can either be independent of the lawgiver, or it can be dependent on the lawgiver. If the transcendent morality is independent of the lawgiver, then it means that the lawgiver must adhere to the law, or be immoral, and its behavior is constrained if it is to be moral.
If however, the morality is defined such that any possible action of the lawgiver is by definition moral, then the moral code is not absolute, and while transcendent is relative. This is because to be absolute, the lawgiver must also be constrained by the moral code.
This is why, like Boxcar, my experience is most Theists are in fact moral relativists. Instead of their morality being relative in comparison to other people, their morality is relative with respect to their deity. They have chosen to define good as whatever they ascribe to their deity.
When you are defining moral relativism, it appears that you are confining it to only human actors.
You appear to be referring to the classic so called Euthyphro dilemma. As far as I am able to now understand, the traditional orthodox Christian view (with which I happen to agree) asserts God as the pattern of all things good, righteous and just. Objective moral absolutes are merely a reflection of God's natural character and nature. Therefore, God is not restricted by some a priori notion of morality nor does God command his creatures to commit acts that are contrary to his own nature nor is it possible for God to violate his own nature.
However, I would like to pose the same question to you in the form of the atheist Euthryphro dilemma:
Is something wrong because it's wrong, or is it wrong simply because the atheist says it's wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
On a related note, I am not sure that I have ever seen a full definition of an absolute morality by any of its adherents. I certainly didn't have one when I was a believer. It is interesting to me that I was so willing to declare an absolute unchanging morality, when I couldn't define exactly what it was that was absolute. This is one of the reasons so many of us non-theists (and even deists) are hesitant to adhere to an absolute, transcendent morality; no one has as of yet defined a consistent, comprehensive one to follow.
Jesus basically reduced them to two. Seems pretty straight-forward to me.
Okay. So would you agree that your view really has no answer to the question of origin?
I would say that my view does have an answer, but the answer is that "there is not enough information to know what the origin is." That's a subtle distinction, and it may not be an important distinction for the purposes of your question. If it's not an important distinction for your purposes, you can describe my view as having no answer to the question of origin.
But technically my view is not non-responsive to the question, it simple responds by admitting that the lack of knowledge related to the origins of everything prevents useful speculation about the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Can I get you to elaborate on why you think that the concept of an eternally existing first cause agent is illogical?
Because the first cause agent itself, by it's own definition, is an effect without a cause.
I also don't find it to be a useful concept because it creates the very same problem it seeks to solve; the problem of what caused the first thing to come into existence. It simply moves the question one element down the line.
The same logic that forces us to believe a first cause agent is necessary, also forces us to conclude that a first cause agent isn't possible.
If we are willing to assume that a first cause agent is logically possible, then that same logic would conclude a first cause agent isn't necessary.
Because if we are willing to admit that it is logically possible for something to have always existed, why not just assume the universe too has always existed? (First cause agent isn't necessary.)
On the other hand, if we are unwilling to admit that it is logically possible for something to have always existed, then how do we explain the existence of the first cause agent?(First cause agent isn't possible.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Everything that is empirically verified and observed points to contingency. Science and logic simply don't support the notion of observable effects that are not caused. Even people like Stephen Hawking assert that the universe had a beginning.
"Everything that BEGINS to exist, has a CAUSE."
I would certainly agree with you here if your premise that ALL THINGS need a cause was logical. This is the precise reason that the notion of a primary first cause agent is logical...it posits a logical first cause to all of the effects that we are able to observe.
Science points to the universe as having a beginning. What does science inform us about the nature of a primary first cause agent? Allow me to suggest that science can't tell us anything about the nature of a primary first cause agent. Thus, it would appear that we are left with two options:
Logical speculation.
and
Revelation.
Is it possible that the Bible, the Quran and Torah reveal God as a first cause agent? Is it possible that one or more of these books gives us a true revelation of the nature and character of this first cause agent?
It is not possible for the god of Abraham to have been the first cause agent, because that theory would equally violate the rule that every effect must have a cause.
If it is logically possible for an eternal god to exist, it would also be logically possible for the universe itself to have eternally existed. (first agent not necessary). If it is not logically possible for the universe to have eternally existed, then it is not logically possible that a god eternally existed.
The addition of god doesn't solve the problem, it only adds another unnecessary element in the chain of events.
That is why I say neither having a god nor not having a god seems reasonable to me. However, not having a god seems slightly less unreasonable, because at least we know the universe exists, while we don't know if a god exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I don't see any need to change our agreed upon definitions. Basic theism would logically encompass Judaism, Islam and Christianity. They all have the basic commonality of the Ten Commandments as a fixed code of moral absolutes.
It's true that our definition of basic theism would encompass the Abrahamic god religions, but it would also encompass much more than the Abrahamic god religions. The only question is if you want me to limit my discussion of theism to the Abrahamic religions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I'm well aware of what you stated. In what way is my response presumed to misrepresent or misstate your assertion?
In no way was your response presumed to misrepresent or misstate my assertion.
Perhaps I misread the tone of your post, but I assumed your statement was meant to refute what I stated, instead of simply restating it in your language. Accordingly I was only pointing out that I had already voluntarily concede what you had alleged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
With respect to PRACTICAL APPLICATION, your view is on par with the atheistic view. It rejects God as a reasonable explanation for anything. Again I ask, without God (a creator) how can there logically be any presumption of intrinsic meaning to our existence?
As I stated previously, the practical application of my view is consistent with both the atheistic view as well as some forms of the theistic view. If we are now to limit the theistic view to only the Abrahamic religions, then my views are only consistent with atheistic views because they are inconsistent with Abrahamism.
As I have stated before, for me personally I don't see an intrinsic meaning to our universe. As for other atheist and agnostics, there could be any number of ways they see an intrinsic meaning for our existence.
For example, they may believe there is a natural order to the universe, and that the meaning of life is to behave in ways that are consistent with that natural order. This natural order could be based on physics and biology or just about anything else, but of course not god.
Or they could believe in re incarnation, and that the meaning of life is to evolve into a form of being or into greater awareness. Thus the meaning of their existence is to do whatever it takes to ensure their reincarnation. While that does require the belief in a soul of sorts, it does not require the belief in a god.
Or perhaps they could believe that the highest expression of humanity is wisdom, and accordingly the most important meaning of life is to increase wisdom. Thus their life means something by virtue of the fact they are sapient, and becoming more wise is the intrinsic meaning of their life.
There are lots more, I'm sure. But it's getting late.
I'll have to answer you next "world view" question in my next post.
I would say that my view does have an answer, but the answer is that "there is not enough information to know what the origin is." That's a subtle distinction, and it may not be an important distinction for the purposes of your question. If it's not an important distinction for your purposes, you can describe my view as having no answer to the question of origin.
But technically my view is not non-responsive to the question, it simple responds by admitting that the lack of knowledge related to the origins of everything prevents useful speculation about the subject.
Thanks...I always appreciate honesty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Because the first cause agent itself, by it's own definition, is an effect without a cause.
I also don't find it to be a useful concept because it creates the very same problem it seeks to solve; the problem of what caused the first thing to come into existence. It simply moves the question one element down the line.
The same logic that forces us to believe a first cause agent is necessary, also forces us to conclude that a first cause agent isn't possible.
If we are willing to assume that a first cause agent is logically possible, then that same logic would conclude a first cause agent isn't necessary.
Because if we are willing to admit that it is logically possible for something to have always existed, why not just assume the universe too has always existed? (First cause agent isn't necessary.)
On the other hand, if we are unwilling to admit that it is logically possible for something to have always existed, then how do we explain the existence of the first cause agent?(First cause agent isn't possible.)
It is not possible for the god of Abraham to have been the first cause agent, because that theory would equally violate the rule that every effect must have a cause.
If it is logically possible for an eternal god to exist, it would also be logically possible for the universe itself to have eternally existed. (first agent not necessary). If it is not logically possible for the universe to have eternally existed, then it is not logically possible that a god eternally existed.
The addition of god doesn't solve the problem, it only adds another unnecessary element in the chain of events.
That is why I say neither having a god nor not having a god seems reasonable to me. However, not having a god seems slightly less unreasonable, because at least we know the universe exists, while we don't know if a god exists.
You appear to be asserting that EVERYTHING must logically be considered to be an EFFECT. Is that your assertion?
Scientific findings and empirical observation cry out contingency (beginning and ending). As well, the notion of a never ending series of causes and effects seems realistically impractical to me. Logically, how can we presume the universe or theoretical multiverses to be eternal?
Why must we presume the concept of an eternally existing primary first cause agent to be illogical? I understand why we would posit the notion of an eternal universe or theoretical multiverse as illogical, but in what way would the notion of an eternal primary first cause agent defy logic or empirical scientific investigation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
It's true that our definition of basic theism would encompass the Abrahamic god religions, but it would also encompass much more than the Abrahamic god religions. The only question is if you want me to limit my discussion of theism to the Abrahamic religions.
Right. I see this as being in line with our previously agreed upon definition of basic theism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
In no way was your response presumed to misrepresent or misstate my assertion.
Perhaps I misread the tone of your post, but I assumed your statement was meant to refute what I stated, instead of simply restating it in your language. Accordingly I was only pointing out that I had already voluntarily concede what you had alleged.
Cool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
As I stated previously, the practical application of my view is consistent with both the atheistic view as well as some forms of the theistic view. If we are now to limit the theistic view to only the Abrahamic religions, then my views are only consistent with atheistic views because they are inconsistent with Abrahamism.
Understood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
As I have stated before, for me personally I don't see an intrinsic meaning to our universe...
Enough said. Your world view apparently has no answer to the questions of origin or meaning (intrinsic).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
I'll have to answer you next "world view" question in my next post.
There are billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, most which are thought to have planets. If one believes evolution could occur naturally on earth, why would they believe it could not happen on any of the several billion other planets?
I'm agnostic on both of those issues.
What about the possibility of other dimensions existing alongside ours? A multiverse?
You appear to be asserting that EVERYTHING must logically be considered to be an EFFECT. Is that your assertion?
That is close. It would be more precise to say the EXISTENCE of everything must be considered an effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Scientific findings and empirical observation cry out contingency (beginning and ending). As well, the notion of a never ending series of causes and effects seems realistically impractical to me. Logically, how can we presume the universe or theoretical multiverses to be eternal?
Why must we presume the concept of an eternally existing primary first cause agent to be illogical? I understand why we would posit the notion of an eternal universe or theoretical multiverse as illogical, but in what way would the notion of an eternal primary first cause agent defy logic or empirical scientific investigation?
I agree that it is not logical to presume the universe to be eternal. But I also believe that all the other alternatives are equally or slightly more illogical.
The same basic logic that compels us to assume the universe could not have always existed also compels us to assume nothing else could have always existed either.
I find the distinction between the material and immaterial to be arbitrary and perhaps false. I don't think it is a useful distinction, or even a useful concept. With the discovery of such things as dark matter and other things that don't fit the traditional definition of matter, all we know is that some things do exists, and other things may not exists. For all things that do exists, the same rules of logic apply equally. Thus the same rules of logic must apply equally to a god as to a universe.
Do you believe the rules of logic would apply to God? If I remember correctly, you once asserted you did, but I may be mistaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Enough said. Your world view apparently has no answer to the questions of origin or meaning (intrinsic).
You may put it that way if you wish. But more precisely, my world view answers the question of origin by saying there is not enough information to form an accurate answer, and it answers the question of meaning by saying there is no intrinsic meaning, there are only meanings we provide for ourselves.
So it's not as if my world view doesn't address those questions, and it's not as if my world view doesn't provide a response to those questions. But in one case the answer is, "it is unknown" and in the second case it is "there is no intrinsic meaning, only self-defined meaning."
On to the next "world view" question: Morality
I can most apply be described as a consequentialists, and more precisely as a weak rule utilitarian, balanced against pragmatism. I do respect categorical imperatives, and they either bolster or weaken my sense of moral surety depending on whether they are consistent with or contradict the application of the weak utilitarian rules.
Since I believe you have studied philosophy, I won't go into more detail on that unless you think it would be useful.
Last edited by Boxcar Overkill; 10-15-2011 at 11:09 AM..
That is close. It would be more precise to say the EXISTENCE of everything must be considered an effect.
...but you have no basic logical premise that supports such a conclusion?
Would you also agree that there is no scientific data to support such a conclusion? It seems to me that science and logic literally scream out for a primary first cause agent.
...but you are determined not to concede the point, aren't you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
I agree that it is not logical to presume the universe to be eternal. But I also believe that all the other alternatives are equally or slightly more illogical.
Sorry. I don't find assertions that include the term "I believe" to be very convincing. I am trying to keep an open mind, but I need more from you with respect to a view that presents logical deduction and, where practical, scientific validation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
The same basic logic that compels us to assume the universe could not have always existed also compels us to assume nothing else could have always existed either.
As I've stated, science and logic simply do not support the notion of an eternally existing universe. Quite the opposite. It virtually cries out for a primary first cause agent, one that exists by necessity. Science and logic support this view. You may not like it and may not wish to accept it, but, I think that if you're going to be honest you must be willing to at least acknowledge that much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
I find the distinction between the material and immaterial to be arbitrary and perhaps false. I don't think it is a useful distinction, or even a useful concept. With the discovery of such things as dark matter and other things that don't fit the traditional definition of matter, all we know is that some things do exists, and other things may not exists. For all things that do exists, the same rules of logic apply equally. Thus the same rules of logic must apply equally to a god as to a universe.
"I find the distinction between the material and immaterial to be arbitrary and perhaps false."
Simply more speculation that is unsubstantiated by logic or scientific data. Your stated conclusion here is a non sequitur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Do you believe the rules of logic would apply to God? If I remember correctly, you once asserted you did, but I may be mistaken.
As I recall, we were discussing the omnipotence issue. I stated that there are things revealed in scripture that God cannot do. As well, I stated that God cannot create square circles or four sided triangles. This doesn't mean that God is restricted by some a priori given set of logical principles. It means that God sets the standard for what is logical and what is ultimately coherent. As with moral standards, God cannot act against his own nature. Is that helpful?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
You may put it that way if you wish. But more precisely, my world view answers the question of origin by saying there is not enough information to form an accurate answer, and it answers the question of meaning by saying there is no intrinsic meaning, there are only meanings we provide for ourselves.
So it's not as if my world view doesn't address those questions, and it's not as if my world view doesn't provide a response to those questions. But in one case the answer is, "it is unknown" and in the second case it is "there is no intrinsic meaning, only self-defined meaning."
Is "self defined meaning" logical? Again, if we as humans are simply the product of some random chance occurrence, why should anyone logically wish to assume that any sort of "self defined meaning" is even necessary?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
On to the next "world view" question: Morality
I can most apply be described as a consequentialists, and more precisely as a weak rule utilitarian, balanced against pragmatism. I do respect categorical imperatives, and they either bolster or weaken my sense of moral surety depending on whether they are consistent with or contradict the application of the weak utilitarian rules.
Since I believe you have studied philosophy, I won't go into more detail on that unless you think it would be useful.
Here is a restatement of my definition of moral relativity:
"Moral relativity would fall into line with the those who deny the existence of absolute truth and morality. In other words, that truth and morality are reduced to personal preference. Hence the saying: 'What's true and moral for you, is true and moral for you and whats true and moral for me is true and moral for me.' Relativity denies the existence of any a priori absolutes."
Do you agree with this?
Logically, we have two choices. Either morality is fixed and absolute (God exists and has communicated a moral code) or all morality is relative (no God exists, therefore, man is the final arbiter of all morality) and all forms of societal imposed notions of morality are nothing more than human constructs. Agree?
I've tried to explain this several times, but I think I now see where our point of disagreement lies.
In order for a first cause to logically be necessary and possible, it would also be necessary and possible for the first cause to have it's own first cause. Thus it would not be a first cause to begin with.
That is proof that the first cause theory is incoherent.
Yet rather than reject the first cause argument, (correct if I'm wrong) you introduce an illogical god. A god that can do what is logically not possible to do: Not require a first cause agent.
That is a case of "special pleading"- an unexplained claim of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter.
So, unless you can explain a logical reason that the first cause doesn't also need a first cause, the first cause agent hypothesis is incoherent. The introduction of an illogical god doesn't prove the theory, it only proves it relies on illogical premises.
Secondly, you claim both logic AND science demand a first cause. That is not true. Logic MAY demand it, but science doesn't. It certainly doesn't require the first cause to be something other than the universe itself. But there is nothing in science that would prevent an eternal universe, one that existed prior to the big bang.
Quote:
Is "self defined meaning" logical? Again, if we as humans are simply the product of some random chance occurrence, why should anyone logically wish to assume that any sort of "self defined meaning" is even necessary?
It is not necessary. That does not mean it is illogical. There are several things that are not necessary but that are logical. As was stated previously, I find it pleasurable to have a self-defined meaning, but not everyone may feel the same.
The same basic premise applies to a theistic meaning of life. It's not necessary to adopt the meaning of life applied by theism, even if one believed they were true. One could decide that they would rather face the consequences rather than adopt the meaning provided by theism.
Quote:
Here is a restatement of my definition of moral relativity:
"Moral relativity would fall into line with the those who deny the existence of absolute truth and morality. In other words, that truth and morality are reduced to personal preference. Hence the saying: 'What's true and moral for you, is true and moral for you and whats true and moral for me is true and moral for me.' Relativity denies the existence of any a priori absolutes."
Do you agree with this?
Logically, we have two choices. Either morality is fixed and absolute (God exists and has communicated a moral code) or all morality is relative (no God exists, therefore, man is the final arbiter of all morality) and all forms of societal imposed notions of morality are nothing more than human constructs. Agree?
I strongly disagree. You could hardly be more wrong.
There are far more choices than you have listed.
How would one categories utilitarianism, for example? It does not contend that morality is subjective or that "what is moral to you may not be moral to me." Yet it doesn't require a god.
There are also theories of absolute morality that exist without a god. For example, Kant's Categorical Imperatives explicitly are founded on reason and explicitly do not require a god. It is classically define as a moral absolute theory. (Kant does assume later that one would want to do what is "good" so they wouldn't be punished in hell. But that does not exclude the theory that one would want to do good simply because it brings them satisfaction to be a good person.)
On to your last "world view" question. I don't know what you mean by "hope for destiny." Could you be more specific? Why is it even required to be included in a "world view?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
