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.
b: Christian Science: the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
This fits well with my definition. Divine Principle is absolute. Eternal is absolute. The infinite, beyond relative perspective. Hey, you're not trying to exclude me from my own faith, are you? Because...your perceptions of it don't jibe with what I'm saying...?
I am Catholic. Because of my work and social life I've had great discussions with Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Lutherans, Methodists, Hindus, Buddhists, oh, etcetera. And we find common ground on the definition I offered earlier, so I from experience just can't agree that it's so oddball.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
In other words, what is absolute about God that is not also absolute about me?
If your perspective is relativist, then your conclusion is foregone. It's a bit circular, isn't it. Are you trying to disprove the absolute? If so, how? Are you trying to prove the absolute for non-theism? If so, how? If you're simply saying I can neither prove nor disprove absolutism, congratulations. You're right. But my answer to this question is already posted.
I assure everyone I'm not being gruff with those questions. I'm really curious about the answers you've developed for yourselves. What does constitute objective human knowledge? How do we logically support its truth? I mean, I'm not the only one who has to answer questions.
I also wouldn't bring in too much Biblical literature into the discussion, as I could also point to some rather grueling proto-Existentialist work by de Sade and others to score some equally visceral points.
This fits well with my definition. Divine Principle is absolute. Eternal is absolute. The infinite, beyond relative perspective. Hey, you're not trying to exclude me from my own faith, are you? Because...your perceptions of it don't jibe with what I'm saying...?
I am Catholic. Because of my work and social life I've had great discussions with Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Lutherans, Methodists, Hindus, Buddhists, oh, etcetera. And we find common ground on the definition I offered earlier, so I from experience just can't agree that it's so oddball.
If your perspective is relativist, then your conclusion is foregone. It's a bit circular, isn't it. Are you trying to disprove the absolute? If so, how? Are you trying to prove the absolute for non-theism? If so, how? If you're simply saying I can neither prove nor disprove absolutism, congratulations. You're right. But my answer to this question is already posted.
I was only pointing out that your original definition of God, as far as I can ascertain, is incorrect.
Quote:
"God" at the most basic definition is any idea that an absolute exists. If you're a materialist or strictly empiricist, you can't logically believe in absolutes.
"God" is neither necessary nor sufficient to believe in absolutims, and one may be a materialist and still be an absolutist with equal authority as a theist.
"God" is neither necessary nor sufficient to believe in absolutims, and one may be a materialist and still be an absolutist with equal authority as a theist.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but do you perceive my answer as suggesting I, as a theist, have more authority about the truth than a non-theist? If so, no, that's not my point. This is an abstract issue, not a personal one. So to answer, I don't believe a materialist can have any authority over absolute truths by definition. It would be relative authority. Personal authority. So for a materialist to require objective proof of an abstract (and relative, to the materialist) position is a self-nullifying request. How does one overcome this inherent contradiction? There is a sound answer to this proposition. I just personally couldn't live with it, as I posted before.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but do you perceive my answer as suggesting I, as a theist, have more authority about the truth than a non-theist?
No, I understand what you are saying, but I am disagreeing with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunjee
If so, no, that's not my point. This is an abstract issue, not a personal one. So to answer, I don't believe a materialist can have any authority over absolute truths by definition. It would be relative authority. Personal authority. So for a materialist to require objective proof of an abstract (and relative, to the materialist) position is a self-nullifying request. How does one overcome this inherent contradiction? There is a sound answer to this proposition. I just personally couldn't live with it, as I posted before.
Let me give you two examples, thought experiments if you will. The first demonstrates that one can have a concept of a "God" while not be absolutest. The second will deomonstrate how one can be a materialist but still be an absolutest. Then I will give one final point to wrap it all up.
Example 1: If I were to believe in a God, could I also believe that slavery was immoral now, but was not immoral thousands of years ago? Could I have one set of rules for some slaves, and another for other slaves, depending on their tribe? I could, and I would be a theistic relativist. If I believed one person could kill women and children in warfare, but other people couldn't, or that one person could have multiple spouses, but others couldn't, depending on time and place, I would again be a theistic relativist. Finally, if I could believe it was wrong to punish the son for the sins of the fathers for some beings, but not for others, it would be relativism, even if based on theism.
Example 2: I could not believe in God, but still believe that murder is universally wrong, regardless of who does it and who it is done too. I can be against slavery, universal, independent of time and place. I could be against rape and infanticide. I could adopt one universal rule: "Do not do to others what you would not want done to you" and espouse that as a universal maxim for all people in all times. That would make me an atheistic absolutist.
To Wrap it All Up: One may say there is but one universal absolutim rule for theist - and that is to do God's will. Regardless whether his will is consistent across time and place, "doing God's will" is the universal maxim that makes theism absolute.
My reply to that is one could just as easily say that the universal abolute rule is that people should do MY will, and it would be exactly as absolute as the theistic absolutims. The only difference is that the person you are deferring your moral judgement to is me rather than the God beings. Thus my previous statement:
Quote:
In other words, what is absolute about God that is not also absolute about me?
None of this addresses the basic issue of knowledge, though. It's an argument post-conclusion against objective truth. (And examples of the application of knowledge at that, avoiding the nature of knowledge itself.) Besides which, to re-address the question, it's one thing to commit to a relativist worldview. It's another thing, in terms of our discussion at least, to make a request of validation for another's presumed relativist worldview...?
So I disagree, respectfully. I've posted enough too! I rarely post in these forums anymore, so thanks. To add to what I said earlier, most of my friends are atheists and that's the truth. We've had these same discussions over many years, and they come to the same conclusions. This is where we are. Perfectly amicably, I hope.
Mine was neither an argument for or against objective truth.
I was simply pointing out that theistic belief systems may or may not be absolute, and materialist may or may not be absolute. Neither demands or prohibits an absolute view of moral-ism.
This was counter to your original statement relating to the definition of God and absolutism.
This fits well with my definition. Divine Principle is absolute. Eternal is absolute. The infinite, beyond relative perspective. Hey, you're not trying to exclude me from my own faith, are you? Because...your perceptions of it don't jibe with what I'm saying...?
I am Catholic. Because of my work and social life I've had great discussions with Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Lutherans, Methodists, Hindus, Buddhists, oh, etcetera. And we find common ground on the definition I offered earlier, so I from experience just can't agree that it's so oddball...
I'd agree with you up until the "infinite Mind" bit. That, to me, would imply/demand that there is a consciousness/intelligence/sentience. Your definition of: "'God' at the most basic definition is any idea that an absolute exists...", makes no requirement for sentience or consciousness, does it?
Being that I'm not Christian, let alone Catholic, I'd make no claims to know what would or would not exclude you from your own faith.
Most of the Catholics I know would NOT agree with your definition of "God" being simply the idea of an absolute, at his/its most basic. This has nothign to do with my perceptions, and everything to do with the definiton you offered, so please don't put words in my mouth.
Regardless, are you of the opinion that "God" must exist in order for logical absolutes to exist?
"God" at the most basic definition is any idea that an absolute exists.
It's a circular argument to define god as any absolute and then conclude that there's no way to get absolutes without god.
Quote:
If you're a materialist or strictly empiricist, you can't logically believe in absolutes.
Yes I can. 1 is absolutely less than 2. So with that out of the way, now the question becomes what kind of absolutes various believers are justified to believe in.
In other words, what is absolute about God that is not also absolute about me?
Nothing except cultural baggage. Sure, believers like the one you're quoting say that they're not talking about the normal type of god. But as you point out, unless you include the ideas of a transcendent omnipotent omniscient god there's no reason to think that god's opinion is any more absolute than anything else's.
And then they sneak in the stuff about their god being the creator of heaven and earth who sent its only begotten son as a human-god hybrid to sacrifice itself to itself to save humanity from itself, and then wonder why people objected to the vague "god is an idea about ideas" definition they tried to push off on us in the first place.
Last edited by KCfromNC; 09-01-2011 at 06:58 AM..
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.
Because...your perceptions of it don't jibe with what I'm saying...? 
I rarely post in these forums anymore, so thanks. To add to what I said earlier, most of my friends are atheists and that's the truth. We've had these same discussions over many years, and they come to the same conclusions. This is where we are. Perfectly amicably, I hope.
