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.
No, by "subjective" I mean that one man's reasonable argument could be another man's ridiculous argument.
Understood. But simply dismissing an argument out-of-hand does nothing in the way of demonstrating, through logical and reasoned arguments the "ridiculousness" of an opposing view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
You don't see how a Church historian openly advocating deliberate editing of the historical account of things to paint the Church in the best possible light as a direct link to questioning those accounts? Really?
Unless it can be practicably and reasonably asserted that Eusebius had utter carte blanche control over portions of scripture, in other words, the ability to rewrite the biblical record or portions of the biblical record, his supposed intentions are of very little import. Even if he dearly desired to rewrite the biblical record it would not logically follow that he actually had the ability to.
I would bring to your attention the case of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Basically, they've been trying for years to rewrite just one very small portion of the biblical record - it hasn't worked out to well for them either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
No, not if "reasonable" was the wrong term to convey my thoughts in the first place. That takes the either/or scenario completely off the table. If I meant "understandable" instead of "reasonable", the only other option is NOT "unreasonable". However, we're getting off track here.
By neglecting to infer one way or the other with respect to whether the argument is reasonable or unreasonable you appear to give the impression that you lack a reasoned rebuttal. Otherwise, why not just state why you find the argument to be reasoned or unreasoned?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Are you kidding me here? We'll "agree to disagree" about what I meant? Are you proposing to know my mind at least as well, if not better, than I do? You realize this is analogous to me saying "I don't like cabbage." and you replying with "We'll agree to disagree, I think you really do like cabbage." Honestly!
I really don't mean to bring any offense with this. Perhaps, if you would do a rewrite of your assertion in post #10, it would help to clarify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
No, I'm simply stating that what you find "reasonable" is not proof of the existence of a god. I thought that was pretty clear.
Again, I'm not out to prove anything. If ,in your view, my reasoning is determined to be unreasonable, please take time to enlighten me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
No, I'm simply stating that if morality was instilled in us by our Creator, would you not expect that morality to be consistent across all of humanity?
If moral absolutes exist, wouldn't that make them automatically and by definition "consistent across all humanity?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Can you tell me, and please be specific, what moral code you would need if you were stranded on a desert island alone?
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind."
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
So, your position is that morality is never, in any situation, unnecessary?
Could you be a little more specific by providing some example or illustration?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Uh, because we won? Do you think the Nazis would have stood trial had the Axis powers won?
Are you inferring that might makes right?
05-06-2011, 03:05 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
You seem to be suggesting that it's possible for humans to have transcendent ideas and concepts in the absence of a transcendent being. Am I understanding you correctly?
Sort of - first, they are just ideas and concepts - non of which need to be correspondent to reality nor to some transcendent being. Second, my point was simply - why do you presume to think that nature itself could not be the source of these absolutes? Not that I hold to this view - just wondering why? Third, objectivity does not necessitate transcendence in an eternal Being. Objectivity:
1. ability to view things objectively: the ability to perceive or describe something without being influenced by personal emotions or prejudices
2. accuracy: the fact or quality of being accurate, unbiased, and independent of individual perceptions
Many things about ourselves have been discovered even though all knowledge must pass through our subjective minds - this is because of the methodologies used to arrive at that knowledge - likewise our understanding of this sense of moral objectivity and our ability to say what is good or bad for us as humans can have objectivity in the above definition without appealing to a Divine Lawgiver.
Quote:
If the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible exists and this God actually communicated commandments to Moses and preserved them so that they can still "pass through our subjective" minds, then I would have every logical reason to conclude the existence of moral absolutes. This is aside from the fact that, up to now, I've found all arguments in favor of moral relativism to be utter nonsense.
That's a big 'if.' Why would he need them to 'pass through our subjective minds' (I have no idea how this works or how you would demonstrate this?) in order for us to know them and conclude that they exist objectivly? Yet he gave them 1000's of years later in Divine Commands and then subjects these commands to a subjective mind to interpret them and expects people to follow them properly or be held accountable for not doing so while proclaiming, at the same time, that they are not able to - which obviously is true - hence the other theological 'ifs' you have to put into place - like paradise, the fall, and future judgment while overlooking the present failures of man (no present justice for breaking those commands), hence the need for a Savior and the future paradise - that we all find in this inspired and inerrant Book given to a small tribe in the hopes that they spread the message - Can we say Occam's Razor please.
Quote:
Your "therefore" is a non sequitur. That is, unless you're able to provide empirical evidence or logical reasoning to back up your hypothesis. Keep in mind that we are discussing the concept of the existence of moral absolutes. While I would agree that humans have a natural 'inherent' ability to understand moral concepts and exhibit altruism to one degree or another, this does nothing to buttress the argument against the existence of moral absolutes - Unless I'm missing something. Please feel free to enlighten me.
Yet you have done nothing to demonstrate that they exists other than presume that if God exist then they exist. Could God exist and there not be any binding obligations upon humanity to keep a standard that is ontologically in the category of GOD while claiming that we are ontologically and absolutely different - talk about being between a rock and a hard place - if God's morlas are necessitated by His nature and grounded in it then why in the world would he expect us to keep this standard when we are ontologically not God? Heck even in the unfallen state we were not God - so how come he issues forth commands that are grounded in his nature to a creature that is not created with the same set of attributes that insures God to be good all the time yet allows us to be bound and obligated to these values knowing that we are not equipped to succeed in the same manner. Which obvisously was the case.
It is really your argument - that if God exists then absolute morals exists - which is a non sequitur particularly when you fail to define God and absolutes in any significant way nor demonstrate that they exist at all.
Now let us ask ourselves a question about a rule that God has given - say - you shall not kill. Is there any exceptions to this rule - of course - so how is this rule absolute when it has not anticipated the probable circumstances that afford an exception to that rule - what good did it really do in establishing an absolute if ther is an exception to it? Of course he left us in the dark as to what to do in all the varied circumstance we might find ouselves in that would give us an exception to these suppossed absolutes.
Lastly, many of the things that I pointed out have been researched in the fields of cognition, primate research, economics, psychology, and the physical and chemical aspects of the brain that show how and why a sense of morals arise in humans - no need for a transcendent objective morality from a God that you have not demonstrated exists.
Quote:
...and how's that been working out for society thus far in the course of human events?
I think we have progressed along way and have learned alot during the journey. We are still alive and one of the most sucessful creatures on the globe - no one is looking for perfection except you.
By the way, I could say the same for you and your concepts - how does it really matter in the real practical world that seems to take no thought of this God or these morals as being absolute or even adjudicated by this Being when violated? Oh wait, since God is good he must have good reason to postpone all the justice that is in need for all the wrongs that have gone before. Good luck in demonstrating that apart from your appeal to a Book and some theological musings.
See, you're the one in a pickle my friend, because you hold to a Divine Lawgiver with absolutes that are at the present time binding upon all humanity yet we do not see the Divine consequences and so you have to continue to add theological apsects, to this apparent contradicton called reality, like paradise lost, paradise restored, fallen humanity, Savior, future hell and judgement etc. etc. None of which you are capable of demonstrating apart from a Book and your subjective faith. At least I am dealing with the realities of human action in light of reasoned reasearch about the human conditon - both physically and psychologically.
Quote:
Simply opining that it's a "stretch" is one thing, providing a logical rebuttal is quite another. Again, I don't deny that humans are born with a sense of morality - the Bible actually confirms as much. This does nothing to forward a logical argument for moral relativism.
There is no 'stretch' when someone says that I believe that absolute morals exist because humanity has a sense of absolute morals and they would not unless God exists and yet does nothing to show either that God exists or that these morals exists appart from appealing to humanity itself.
Go ahead, demonstrate to me that these absolute morals exist! Where are you going to point to - a deductive argument that is coherent yet non correspondent to reality? To the subjective minds of humanity and thier sense of absolutes? To humanities fear that if there are no absolutes we cannot judge a person like Hitler in an absolute way? None of those do squat to demonstrate God or these morals you think are absolute.
The first is just a nice little argument in which you control all the definitions and premises so as to make it coherent yet no necessity of correspondence. The second one is just demonstrating objective concepts through subjective minds - no good. The last one is just an appeal to emotional dislikes. Fail.
Quote:
As I initially inferred in this post, I'm looking for you to logically explain how it would be possible to have "moral rules that transcend" in the absence of any transcendent authority.
I am not trying to do any such thing. When I say 'transcend time and culture' I mean something that spans the realm of human history dispite the time period and culture in which a person is to be found not some absolute code in the ether world pressing down upon humanity from an eternal God figure. There are reasons other than that that humans have come up with 'moral rules', 'emotions' toward actions, and 'concepts' of responsibilty. Even when your God did not give commands for 1000's of years which happened to end up just like those that suspossedly needed to come from heaven to guide mankind, people were living according to these same principles. Some of these reasons I have already pointed out.
Quote:
Again, merely stating that humans have the ability to behave and reason as you describe does nothing in the way of supporting the notion of moral relativism.
Until you demonstrate otherwise that is what is left. Sorry. Although there are technicalities that would make us not use that phrase to describe morals. But that is beside the point. You make the claim of absolutes - now demonstrate it. I have given reasonable explanations for why we have moral sentiments apart from having to invoke a God or some transcendent code in the Sky or in God Himself. We do not need to subscribe to your definition of objectivity or absolutes in order to declare if something is 'wrong' or 'good' - all the things that I pointed to demonstrated a reasonable foundation for these concepts - human nature and cognitive abilities particularly found in primates and generally in mammals, structures of the brain corresponding to moral sentiments, economics, psychology, etc. It is not just stating an idea - in fact that is what you are doing.
Quote:
While I find your opinions here to be well articulated, IMO you're short on providing logical and reasoned rebuttal to the argument for the existence of moral absolutes. Sorry, it's just my honest assessment.
The rebutal is simply you have not demonstrated them to exist and we have sufficent reasons to account for the sense of morals in humans without trying to account for some absolute objective code in the sky to hold everyone accountable - which frankly even if believed - which most of humanity does - has not helped in keeping back these absolute wrongs you hold to.
Understood. But simply dismissing an argument out-of-hand does nothing in the way of demonstrating, through logical and reasoned arguments the "ridiculousness" of an opposing view.
I'm not dismissing anything. YOU are the one who stated that "proof" was subjective and that YOU preferred to speak on reasonable/unreasonable. I was simply pointing out, in my mind, that reasonable/unreasonable is just as subjective. Nothing more - and this is all really beside the point of this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Unless it can be practicably and reasonably asserted that Eusebius had utter carte blanche control over portions of scripture, in other words, the ability to rewrite the biblical record or portions of the biblical record, his supposed intentions are of very little import. Even if he dearly desired to rewrite the biblical record it would not logically follow that he actually had the ability to.
I would bring to your attention the case of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Basically, they've been trying for years to rewrite just one very small portion of the biblical record - it hasn't worked out to well for them either.
As I said, I haven't researched the situation to the fullest of my abilities, yet. However, Eusebius *does* use the word "we" on more than on occasion - that would imply that he was not alone in the Church hierarchy in his feelings that creative editing and outright omission were necessary deceptions. How, then, am I to agree that we have an accurate history of the Church, or even an accurate history of Biblical events?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
By neglecting to infer one way or the other with respect to whether the argument is reasonable or unreasonable you appear to give the impression that you lack a reasoned rebuttal. Otherwise, why not just state why you find the argument to be reasoned or unreasoned?
Stop being hung up on the term reasonable. I've already stated, numerous times, that "reasonable" was an inaccurate word to describe my thoughts - understandable is much more accurate. I can *understand* how people who believe or want to believe would see the existence of logical absolutes as "proof" of a Creator. I do not agree with that assertion. Do you? If you do, why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I really don't mean to bring any offense with this. Perhaps, if you would do a rewrite of your assertion in post #10, it would help to clarify.
If post #10 continues to confuse you, stop referencing it. I believe I've made my stance clear in the subsequent posts and I'm not going to belabor this point any further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Again, I'm not out to prove anything. If ,in your view, my reasoning is determined to be unreasonable, please take time to enlighten me.
I'm confused as to what your reasoning is, honestly. Care to restate it? I'll reiterate the OP, if that would be helpful. "Do you believe that logical absolutes are "proof" that an intelligent creator exists. If so, why?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
If moral absolutes exist, wouldn't that make them automatically and by definition "consistent across all humanity?"
How do you account for the differences in morality across all of the cultures on our planet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind."
If you assume that belief in a god is requisite to morality, I can see that. I don't believe that belief in god is necessary to have morality, however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Could you be a little more specific by providing some example or illustration?
I already did. You're stranded, alone, on a desert island.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Are you inferring that might makes right?
I'm not implying anything, I'm stating an opinion. Had the Axis powers won, I'm certain that those Nazis would never have been tried for war crimes. Therefore, the only reason they WERE tried is because they lost. Had they won, they would have had the ability to force their morality on the situation. Do you disagree?
I'm not dismissing anything. YOU are the one who stated that "proof" was subjective and that YOU preferred to speak on reasonable/unreasonable. I was simply pointing out, in my mind, that reasonable/unreasonable is just as subjective. Nothing more - and this is all really beside the point of this thread.
I was not trying to infer that you've been dismissing my argument. If you recall, you opined that reason and logic are subjective in the same way that proof and evidence are subjective. My intention was not to accuse you of being dismissive but to merely point out that a choice by someone to dismiss an argument out-of-hand carries with it a sort of back handed acknowledgment with respect to the validity of said argument.
I'm really not trying to get personal with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
As I said, I haven't researched the situation to the fullest of my abilities, yet. However, Eusebius *does* use the word "we" on more than on occasion - that would imply that he was not alone in the Church hierarchy in his feelings that creative editing and outright omission were necessary deceptions. How, then, am I to agree that we have an accurate history of the Church, or even an accurate history of Biblical events?
Is it possible that Eusebius was part of a larger conspiracy to rewrite the biblical record? I suppose it's possible. I've never, before my conversation with you, heard such a theory posited. Is there REASON to believe that such a thing actually occurred?
Also, I'm really not trying to get you to agree with anything. A while back I stated my basic reasons (i.e., the classical arguments for God's existence and basic historical reliability of scripture) for believing in the existence of moral absolutes. You apparently have a different view as evidenced by your bringing forward the Eusebius issue. You may find this to be a logical reason for dismissing the basic historical reliability of scripture - and you're certainly entitled to form such a conclusion. All I've done is make, what I think, are some reasonable points that reasonably call into question your original inference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Stop being hung up on the term reasonable. I've already stated, numerous times, that "reasonable" was an inaccurate word to describe my thoughts - understandable is much more accurate. I can *understand* how people who believe or want to believe would see the existence of logical absolutes as "proof" of a Creator. I do not agree with that assertion. Do you? If you do, why?
As far as "being hung up on the term reasonable," am I to understand that it's okay for me to be unreasonable - or that I should not question the reasoning behind your assertions?
As far as "proof" of a creator, as I already stated I believe it reasonable to conclude that the existence of moral absolutes (transcendent laws) logically necessitate the existence of a transcendent law giver. I believe it logical to conclude that the supposed attributes of this transcendent law giver are similar to that of the Judeo-Christian "creator" described in the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
If post #10 continues to confuse you, stop referencing it. I believe I've made my stance clear in the subsequent posts and I'm not going to belabor this point any further.
Cool. Pardon me for making an honest attempt to try and fully understand your original assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I'm confused as to what your reasoning is, honestly. Care to restate it? I'll reiterate the OP, if that would be helpful. "Do you believe that logical absolutes are "proof" that an intelligent creator exists. If so, why?"
To my knowledge, I've answered this on two separate occasions - in this post and my final assertion in post #25. Are you looking for more specificity? If so, in what way might I be able to accommodate you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
How do you account for the differences in morality across all of the cultures on our planet?
The term 'absolute' implies absoluteness. It doesn't need to be recognized or accepted by all other cultures. In other words, it is what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
If you assume that belief in a god is requisite to morality, I can see that. I don't believe that belief in god is necessary to have morality, however.
You appear to be saying that humans have a natural inherent knowledge of morality and a natural disposition towards morality. If that is your assertion, I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I already did. You're stranded, alone, on a desert island.
Sorry. I've read back over our discussion in an attempt to understand your question - you lost me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I'm not implying anything, I'm stating an opinion. Had the Axis powers won, I'm certain that those Nazis would never have been tried for war crimes. Therefore, the only reason they WERE tried is because they lost. Had they won, they would have had the ability to force their morality on the situation. Do you disagree?
No, I don't disagree. If the Axis powers had won and enforced their morality - would that have made it (mass murder) morally acceptable i.e., would that have made it right?
Sort of - first, they are just ideas and concepts- non of which need to be correspondent to reality nor to some transcendent being.
If we presume for the moment that no transcendent being exists and that it's just us humans, how can anything that's just an idea or concept actually transcend? If mankind is the highest form of creature known to exist, how would it be possible for the thoughts of one creature to transcend the thoughts of another creature? In other words, how could actual existential authority be granted to, or assumed by, any human or group of humans - the type of authority that would cause these various ideas and concepts to be recognized as being absolute?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
Second, my point was simply - why do you presume to think that nature itself could not be the source of these absolutes? Not that I hold to this view - just wondering why?
I believe my previous questions address this. If not, then it would depend upon what you mean when you say nature. What do you believe the nature of nature and character of nature to be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
Third, objectivity does not necessitate transcendence in an eternal Being. Objectivity:
1. ability to view things objectively: the ability to perceive or describe something without being influenced by personal emotions or prejudices
2. accuracy: the fact or quality of being accurate, unbiased, and independent of individual perceptions.
I never stated that objectivity necessitates transcendence. I did assert that it would logically follow that a transcendent law would necessitate the need for a transcendent being (law giver).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
Many things about ourselves have been discovered even though all knowledge must pass through our subjective minds - this is because of the methodologies used to arrive at that knowledge - likewise our understanding of this sense of moral objectivity and our ability to say what is good or bad for us as humans can have objectivity in the above definition without appealing to a Divine Lawgiver.
You appear to be inferring that humans are limited by subjectivity. Am I understanding you correctly? For instance, if I run the law of gravity through my subjective mind and determine that it can be ignored, what is likely to happen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
That's a big 'if.' Why would he need them to 'pass through our subjective minds' (I have no idea how this works or how you would demonstrate this?) in order for us to know them and conclude that they exist objectively?
Because I happen to believe in the concept of truth - that which is. Reality, if you will. If the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible actually exists and Christianity is actually true, in my view, this would be a very important thing to decide upon and attempt to know (empirically and philisophically) to the best of our ability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
Yet he gave them 1000's of years later in Divine Commands and then subjects these commands to a subjective mind to interpret them and expects people to follow them properly or be held accountable for not doing so while proclaiming, at the same time, that they are not able to - which obviously is true - hence the other theological 'ifs' you have to put into place - like paradise, the fall, and future judgment while overlooking the present failures of man (no present justice for breaking those commands), hence the need for a Savior and the future paradise - that we all find in this inspired and inerrant Book given to a small tribe in the hopes that they spread the message - Can we say Occam's Razor please.
I can't help but get the impression that you have some sort of axe to grind. Occam's Razor cuts in both directions. Can we say "Occam's Razor please" to the 'time + matter + chance' hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
Yet you have done nothing to demonstrate that they exists other than presume that if God exist then they exist.
What in the world do you mean by "demonstrate?"
My REASONS for believing they (moral absolutes) exist are all over this thread.
The classical arguments for the existence of God have been out there for hundreds of years and you've done nothing to "demonstrate" that they are illogical or unreasonable. Granted, you obviously have been attempting to shoot holes in the moral argument and I'm still interested to hear what you have to say. Thus far however, well, I find your apparent reasoning to be somewhat less than inspiring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
Could God exist and there not be any binding obligations upon humanity to keep a standard that is ontologically in the category of GOD while claiming that we are ontologically and absolutely different - talk about being between a rock and a hard place - if God's morals are necessitated by His nature and grounded in it then why in the world would he expect us to keep this standard when we are ontologically not God? Heck even in the unfallen state we were not God - so how come he issues forth commands that are grounded in his nature to a creature that is not created with the same set of attributes that insures God to be good all the time yet allows us to be bound and obligated to these values knowing that we are not equipped to succeed in the same manner. Which obvisously was the case.
...getting a bit off track here, aren't we? I'm quite happy to have the theological and hermeneutic discussion over the concept of the nature of sin and the fall, and the nature and character or the Judeo-Christian God. At this point, I don't see how these varied specifics would relate directly to the topic at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
It is really your argument - that if God exists then absolute morals exists - which is a non sequitur particularly when you fail to define God and absolutes in any significant way nor demonstrate that they exist at all.
I've stated that transcendent law would necessitate a transcendent being. You're free to explain how this concept would equate to a non-sequitur.
I've also stated that the supposed attributes of this transcendent being appear similar to the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. Again, where is the non-sequitur?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
Now let us ask ourselves a question about a rule that God has given - say - you shall not kill. Is there any exceptions to this rule - of course - so how is this rule absolute when it has not anticipated the probable circumstances that afford an exception to that rule - what good did it really do in establishing an absolute if there is an exception to it? Of course he left us in the dark as to what to do in all the varied circumstance we might find ourselves in that would give us an exception to these supposed absolutes.
I'll do you one better. The New Testament book of Hebrews lists Rahab the prostitute among the hero's of the faith. Why would a lying prostitute receive such New Testament acclaim? "Thou shalt not lie" seems to me to be a very simply stated and a very clear absolute prohibition. Yet, the Bible places her among those declared to be righteous. What gives? Any thoughts on this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
Lastly, many of the things that I pointed out have been researched in the fields of cognition, primate research, economics, psychology, and the physical and chemical aspects of the brain that show how and why a sense of morals arise in humans - no need for a transcendent objective morality from a God that you have not demonstrated exists.
Would you care to let me in on the specific research - the research that you personally find to be most convincing?
Again, what do you mean when you use the word demonstrate? This is supposed to be a two-way discussion isn't it? In other words, I would give my reasons for my view and you would give your reasons for your view. Does this concept of communication seem reasonable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
I think we have progressed along way and have learned a lot during the journey. We are still alive and one of the most successful creatures on the globe - no one is looking for perfection except you.
By the way, I could say the same for you and your concepts - how does it really matter in the real practical world that seems to take no thought of this God or these morals as being absolute or even adjudicated by this Being when violated? Oh wait, since God is good he must have good reason to postpone all the justice that is in need for all the wrongs that have gone before. Good luck in demonstrating that apart from your appeal to a Book and some theological musings.
I'm not looking for perfection really. If humans by and large could have demonstrated an ability to treat one another with dignity and some measure of respect rather than murdering and seeking to tyrannize one another and routinely commit all manner of assorted evil across the vast panoply of time, I might be inclined to agree with your assertion. The Bible alludes to the general and basic fallen nature of man. Actual historical events would certainly appear to bear this out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
See, you're the one in a pickle my friend, because you hold to a Divine Lawgiver with absolutes that are at the present time binding upon all humanity yet we do not see the Divine consequences and so you have to continue to add theological aspects, to this apparent contradiction called reality, like paradise lost, paradise restored, fallen humanity, Savior, future hell and judgment etc. etc. None of which you are capable of demonstrating apart from a Book and your subjective faith. At least I am dealing with the realities of human action in light of reasoned research about the human condition - both physically and psychologically.
The old saying is that "we reap what we sow." In other words, what goes around comes around. There is a reason why the term 'consequences' is part of the lexicon. Are all consequences divinely directed? Are some consequences divinely directed? It seems to me, that with regard to the topic at hand, you're merely begging the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
There is no 'stretch' when someone says that I believe that absolute morals exist because humanity has a sense of absolute morals and they would not unless God exists and yet does nothing to show either that God exists or that these morals exist apart from appealing to humanity itself.
Is murder wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
Go ahead, demonstrate to me that these absolute morals exist! Where are you going to point to - a deductive argument that is coherent yet non correspondent to reality? To the subjective minds of humanity and their sense of absolutes? To humanities fear that if there are no absolutes we cannot judge a person like Hitler in an absolute way? None of those do squat to demonstrate God or these morals you think are absolute.
Since you bring up Hitler, I think it important to note that what went on in Germany was really nothing more than a movement looking for a leader. If they hadn't found Hitler they would have found somebody else. The whole thing was basically orchestrated by the intellectuals - the people in the 'white coats.' The foundation for the coming genocide was birthed in the halls of academia - it was logic running amok in the absence of truth. They REASONED that if morality is relative then it logically follows that genocide would be an acceptable and pragmatic approach towards forwarding the master race and benefiting mankind as a whole.
You're the one in a "pickle" because people like you try to insist on having things both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
The first is just a nice little argument in which you control all the definitions and premises so as to make it coherent yet no necessity of correspondence. The second one is just demonstrating objective concepts through subjective minds - no good. The last one is just an appeal to emotional dislikes. Fail.
I'm not controlling any definitions or premises - they're all open for debate. With respect to subjectivity, humans are perfectly able to grasp reality and objectivity. You seem to imply that we are greatly limited by subjectivity. If that's the implication, please explain.
As far as emotional dislikes, I've never asserted that we must embrace God and moral absolutes simply because the alternative is viewed as distasteful. You seem to have quite a knack for placing arguments into my mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
I am not trying to do any such thing. When I say 'transcend time and culture' I mean something that spans the realm of human history despite the time period and culture in which a person is to be found not some absolute code in the ether world pressing down upon humanity from an eternal God figure. There are reasons other than that that humans have come up with 'moral rules', 'emotions' toward actions, and 'concepts' of responsibility. Even when your God did not give commands for 1000's of years which happened to end up just like those that supposedly needed to come from heaven to guide mankind, people were living according to these same principles. Some of these reasons I have already pointed out.
Then you are confirming a belief that there are no morals or concepts of morals beyond those that are relative and subjective? If so, why use the term 'transcend?'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
Until you demonstrate otherwise that is what is left. Sorry. Although there are technicalities that would make us not use that phrase to describe morals. But that is beside the point.
Please, by all means, do point out these technicalities. They would be well on point I believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
You make the claim of absolutes - now demonstrate it.
I'm doing my best to give my reasons for believing that moral absolutes exist. In other words, I'm making an argument that I believe to be quite reasonable and logical. As far as demonstrate, what sort of demonstration are you expecting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
I have given reasonable explanations for why we have moral sentiments apart from having to invoke a God or some transcendent code in the Sky or in God Himself. We do not need to subscribe to your definition of objectivity or absolutes in order to declare if something is 'wrong' or 'good' - all the things that I pointed to demonstrated a reasonable foundation for these concepts - human nature and cognitive abilities particularly found in primates and generally in mammals, structures of the brain corresponding to moral sentiments, economics, psychology, etc. It is not just stating an idea - in fact that is what you are doing.
This is supposed to be a two-way street. Making blanket reference to "human nature and cognitive abilities particularly found in primates and generally in mammals, structures of the brain corresponding to moral sentiments, economics, psychology, etc." basically amounts to an intellectual cop out. If you want specificity from me, I'm certainly willing to make every effort in order to accommodate you. I think it only fair for me to expect at least some measure of specificity from you as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
The rebuttal is simply you have not demonstrated them to exist and we have sufficient reasons to account for the sense of morals in humans without trying to account for some absolute objective code in the sky to hold everyone accountable - which frankly even if believed - which most of humanity does - has not helped in keeping back these absolute wrongs you hold to.
If by "demonstrate" you mean to infer 'prove' or 'persuade,' then I would remind you that, as far as I am concerned, my obligation here is to give honest and logical reasons for my belief that moral absolutes exist. I'm not here to prove or persuade.
Last edited by tigetmax24; 05-07-2011 at 10:09 AM..
05-07-2011, 03:41 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
If we presume for the moment that no transcendent being exists and that it's just us humans, how can anything that's just an idea or concept actually transcend? If mankind is the highest form of creature known to exist, how would it be possible for the thoughts of one creature to transcend the thoughts of another creature? In other words, how could actual existential authority be granted to, or assumed by, any human or group of humans - the type of authority that would cause these various ideas and concepts to be recognized as being absolute?
Look, simply put - it can't. This is your constant statement. But stating something does not make it so. You are the one who came here and brought up the moral argument - but now you do not want to defend it. You have not shown that this transcendent authority exists, you have not shown that these absolutes exist, and you have not shown how they are binding upon us as human. Furthermore, you have not shown how we could even epistimelogically arrive at this conclusion.
Quote:
I never stated that objectivity necessitates transcendence. I did assert that it would logically follow that a transcendent law would necessitate the need for a transcendent being (law giver).
Well are these LAWS objective? That is are they independent of human minds? Do they have there grounding in God's nature? If they don't you are not making much sense. Please give me you definition of objective then.
Quote:
You appear to be inferring that humans are limited by subjectivity. Am I understanding you correctly? For instance, if I run the law of gravity through my subjective mind and determine that it can be ignored, what is likely to happen?
Yes we are, but we also have the ability to develop methodologies about how to examine ourself and the world around us to arrive at facts and knowledge that we can rely on as objective (according to the definition that I gave earlier). We also have the ability to step back and reason about ouselves and the world. Now, why can't you do the same for these LAWS you keep pointing to that exist - out there?
Quote:
Because I happen to believe in the concept of truth - that which is. Reality, if you will. If the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible actually exists and Christianity is actually true, in my view, this would be a very important thing to decide upon and attempt to know (empirically and philisophically) to the best of our ability.
That's just the probelm you can't are are not, empirically doing such a thing. All you have done is give us a philosophical statement and have not defended the premises. If absolute morals exist then God exist - OK - big deal. Show us thier existence apart from a philosophical statement. A deductive argument maybe coherent but not necessarily correspondent to reality. You would then have to defend each premise. One of the premises in the moral argument for God is that objective/absolute morals exist. Well I and many people fail to see that they do. You are saying that they do - so defend the premise - show that they exist. Just stating it in an deductive argument does not get us closer to the truth - as you say you love.
[qoute]I can't help but get the impression that you have some sort of axe to grind. Occam's Razor cuts in both directions. Can we say "Occam's Razor please" to the 'time + matter + chance' hypothesis.[/quote]
My axes are very sharp already - thank you. Yes, but we are not here defending the time + matter + chance hypothesis. You came into this thread with declarations about the moral argument. When we start to ask questions about this Divine Law Giver and how these LAWS are binding on humanity we run into all theses theological ad-hoc explanantions to support the idea that they and He exists - it just grows out of control.
Quote:
The classical arguments for the existence of God have been out there for hundreds of years and you've done nothing to "demonstrate" that they are illogical or unreasonable. Granted, you obviously have been attempting to shoot holes in the moral argument and I'm still interested to hear what you have to say. Thus far however, well, I find your apparent reasoning to be somewhat less than inspiring.
Many people have dealt with these arguments before. Nonetheless, your trying to show that absolute morals exist and if so God exist. Also, for example, the cosomological argument for God's existence says nothing about it being the Christian God with morality that is binding upon humans. It just gives and argument for a cause - God. But we are not here to discuss those things.
Quote:
I've stated that transcendent law would necessitate a transcendent being. You're free to explain how this concept would equate to a non-sequitur.
Stated as such - no argument - but implicit in your terms are the idea of that this law is a moral law binding upon humanity and that this being is the GOd of the Bible. You think that a God cannot exist that does not require his creatures to adhere to a moral standard that is grounded in His nature - animals are an example. Or the idea that nature itself is eternal or perhaps an amoral intelligence or principle that guids matter. All these things philosophers deal with - all of which you either implicitly or explicitly ignore.
Quote:
I'll do you one better. The New Testament book of Hebrews lists Rahab the prostitute among the hero's of the faith. Why would a lying prostitute receive such New Testament acclaim? "Thou shalt not lie" seems to me to be a very simply stated and a very clear absolute prohibition. Yet, the Bible places her among those declared to be righteous. What gives? Any thoughts on this?
Would you care to let me in on the specific research - the research that you personally find to be most convincing?
I will do this quickly - read Steven Pinker's 'The Stuff of Thought' as a good foundation to categories of the mind and how language helps us to understand our thinking processes or 'How the mind Works'. References alot of studies throughout.
This is also related to the general economic idea of zero sum games. The econnomic law of asscociation is not a sero sum game and therefore by social co-operation both parties are better off by working toggether than not. Read 'Human Action' (particularly the Part II, VIII Human Society - free online - Human Action - Ludwig von Mises - Mises Institute and 'Foundations of Morality' by Henry Hazlitt - The Foundations of Morality - Henry Hazlitt - Mises Institute)
Should get you started. The point of these things are not that they answer all aspects of the issue (primarily because cognitive studies are just begining and we do not have a total grasp on the complexity of the brain and its epiphenomena) but that it points in the direction away from your simple assumptions.
[quote]I'm not looking for perfection really. If humans by and large could have demonstrated an ability to treat one another with dignity and some measure of respect rather than murdering and seeking to tyrannize one another and routinely commit all manner of assorted evil across the vast panoply of time, I might be inclined to agree with your assertion. The Bible alludes to the general and basic fallen nature of man. Actual historical events would certainly appear to bear this out.[/qoute]
Yes, seems to be a problem for your argument. See above videos - society at the level that we have reached would be impossiable if it was as bad as you make it.
Quote:
As far as emotional dislikes, I've never asserted that we must embrace God and moral absolutes simply because the alternative is viewed as distasteful. You seem to have quite a knack for placing arguments into my mouth.
I suggested possible ways in which you might point to as an argument - I did not say that you made those arguments. If not what are your arguments that they exist?
Quote:
Then you are confirming a belief that there are no morals or concepts of morals beyond those that are relative and subjective? If so, why use the term 'transcend?'
Because that is not the only defintion of transcend.
Quote:
Please, by all means, do point out these technicalities. They would be well on point I believe.
My point was simply that in moral philosophy, ethics, and meta-ethics, there are other possibilties other than moral relativism - it is not the only game in town - so to speak. Study the isssues - I am not your guru to teach you these ideas.
Quote:
I'm doing my best to give my reasons for believing that moral absolutes exist. In other words, I'm making an argument that I believe to be quite reasonable and logical. As far as demonstrate, what sort of demonstration are you expecting?
What arguments have you given that absolute morals Laws exists from a transcendent God that is binding upon humanity? I have only seen the statements.
Quote:
If by "demonstrate" you mean to infer 'prove' or 'persuade,' then I would remind you that, as far as I am concerned, my obligation here is to give honest and logical reasons for my belief that moral absolutes exist. I'm not here to prove or persuade.
Then what is the point if you do not want to persuade someone or show your position to be true - you said you cared about truth - you came here to offer a position now defend it.
An additional debate with one of the top dog apologist for this argument - everyone will benifit from it.
You've accused me throughout of failing to show (present a reason) for believing in the existence of moral absolutes. Yet, you've either overlooked or chosen to ignore two assertions in my last post where I attempt to do just that - and try to steer me off to another thread at one of my other assertions.
A discussion is supposed to be a two-way street. If you refuse to respond or choose to ignore my questions - basically, refusing to engage in a one-on one, how would it be possible for me to get any points across to begin with?
Now, would you kindly address the point I made concerning Hitler and my alluding to the apparent REASONING behind moral relativity. Please respond to my simple question about murder - is it right or wrong? Please give me your quick primary thoughts concerning the Rahab topic.
It's important that you answer the mail concerning these questions that I believe go to the heart of the apparent REASONING behind moral relativity. One primary way to demonstrate (a term you seem to love) the logic of believing in the existence of moral absolutes is to reveal the nonsense involved in the apparent methodology of moral relativism.
Last edited by tigetmax24; 05-08-2011 at 07:21 AM..
05-08-2011, 08:03 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I do intend to respond in entirety to this post.
You've accused me throughout of failing to show (present a reason) for believing in the existence of moral absolutes. Yet, you've either overlooked or chosen to ignore two assertions in my last post where I attempt to do just that - and try to steer me off to another thread at one of my other assertions.
A discussion is supposed to be a two-way street. If you refuse to respond or choose to ignore my questions - basically, refusing to engage in a one-on one, how would it be possible for me to get any points across to begin with?
Now, would you kindly address the point I made concerning Hitler and my alluding to the apparent REASONING behind moral relativity. Please respond to my simple question about murder - is it right or wrong? Please give me your quick primary thoughts concerning the Rahab topic.
It's important that you answer the mail concerning these questions that I believe go to the heart of the apparent REASONING behind moral relativity. One primary way to demonstrate (a term you seem to love) the logic of believing in the existence of moral absolutes is to reveal the nonsense involved in the apparent methodology of moral relativism.
With all do respect Tig you have constantly asked me for things and I have answered EVEN THOUGH it is you who should be doing the answering since you came here and made a claim. The burden is on you not me to provide you an alternitive - one which you keep trying to pigeon hole everyone who disagrees with you as moral relativism - as stated that does not even begin to cover the possible alternitives.
If you would have read my post and the links - your questions would have been answered.
You asked me for thoughts on Rahab - the link is where they are buddy. It is not some distraction from this thread to another And I do not know how Rahab demonstrates the existence of these absolutes?
You asked me for the reasearch - I gave you a number of researchers, their websites, books, and even some videos too boot.
I even gave you a debate which ask the same questions you do - it has plenty of answers. 'A TWO WAY STREET' - PLEASE. I have done enough answering you.
I have noticed that you engaged others with this similar topic - TWO YEARS AGO - and acted with similar diversions and tactics - frankly I think it is a waste of my time from here on - I do not think you want answers - you have your statements and any rebutal or alternative is just swiped away or ignored while then expecting others to defend against your accusations and present alternatives when it is you who should be doing the defending. PRICELESS.
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.
. 
And I do not know how Rahab demonstrates the existence of these absolutes? 
