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.
This fits well with my definition. Divine Principle is absolute.
Isn't Divine Principle just god's opinion? And since you've told us that god doesn't have to be omniscient why assume her judgement is any better than ours?
Quote:
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 love presuppositionalism - where the answer to a straightforward question is to ask unrelated questions and then tell us the question was already answered.
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.
Only if you confuse objective with absolute.
Quote:
How does one overcome this inherent contradiction?
By realizing that the words mean different things and there's no contradiction in the first place.
What would you do if you were confronted with absolute proof that no gods exist, and never have? How would your life change?
So if we were to change this from "absolute" to "objective" then we must logically, comprehensively define "objective" from a materialist or empiricist..."POV"...assuming that's the OP's request. If you think we need not, then the question shouldn't be in a philosophy forum.
So if we were to change this from "absolute" to "objective" then we must logically, comprehensively define "objective" from a materialist or empiricist..."POV"...assuming that's the OP's request. If you think we need not, then the question shouldn't be in a philosophy forum.
The question is much more easily understood than you are trying to make it.
That doesn't mean it's impossible to find ambiguity in the denotation if one looks hard enough.
But why would you want to when the connotation is so straightforward?
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?
The difference lies between moral absolutes and logical absolutes. Logical absolutes could most definitely exist in a universe without God, for even an omnipotent being would be subject to logic.
Moral absolutes, on the other hand, are a different bag. As one poster said, a theist could be a moral relativist, and an atheist could easily be a moral absolutist. The problem is not what the individual believes, but by what authority he claims those beliefs to be true.
If, as the definition of God often states, God is benevolent, then that means that God IS "good", and all that can be recognized as good is of God(let's exclude any religions just now, since I'm sure that some of you detest religious scripture's cloudy picture of what God could be). Thus, the creator of the universe contains the quality of ultimate goodness, thereby casting it into it's creation to be acknowledged or not by it's creations.
Now let's also say that this creator wished to create beings that were of free mind and will. In this regard, it would have to create an environment where it was possible for said creations to refuse it's will, or goodness, and choose to do opposite of it. Therefore, God did not create evil, we did, and in order to continue to be a creation of free will, we are the only ones responsible to stop it.
So, the theist who chooses moral relativism is choosing to do other than the nature of the creator he himself believes in.
On the other hand, let's take the absolutist atheist. He does not believe that there is a God, but at the same time believes that his moral beliefs are truth. That's all well and good for the atheist, and I applaud his decision to follow these truths, but for two things. If there is no ultimate force of good in the universe, then the atheist forms these beliefs of his own mind, or from a belief that it is the best thing for society. The problem here is two-fold.
First, the atheist believes that his own mind is more justly correct in it's beliefs than one who disagrees with his morality, and without basis.
The reason for this lies in the second problem: What is best for society can change on a whim. If society were, over the course of decades or centuries, faced with a global population problem of epic proportions, where millions or billions could die of starvation or disease, then it may one day become the best thing for society to destroy many millions of human lives so that the species might survive. In this regard, it would be possible to legitimize the holocaust.
Opposingly, it could be possible that one day, our populations are so diminished that our very survival is threatened. It may then be best for society that even unwilling women be impregnated for our survival.
I would posit that the reason that the theist is a relativist is because of his own greed and fallibility, denying even those truths in which he believes(We see it all the time)
I would also posit that the reason that the atheist is an absolutist is because those truths are real, perceptable, and woven into the nature of creation.
If, as the definition of God often states, God is benevolent, then that means that God IS "good", and all that can be recognized as good is of God(let's exclude any religions just now, since I'm sure that some of you detest religious scripture's cloudy picture of what God could be). Thus, the creator of the universe contains the quality of ultimate goodness, thereby casting it into it's creation to be acknowledged or not by it's creations.
Subjectively defining god(s) to be good doesn't solve the problem of a lack of a framework for moral absolutes any more than defining me to be good. It's still just the subjective opinion of a person/being and not an absolute law of the universe.
The difference lies between moral absolutes and logical absolutes. Logical absolutes could most definitely exist in a universe without God, for even an omnipotent being would be subject to logic.
Moral absolutes, on the other hand, are a different bag. As one poster said, a theist could be a moral relativist, and an atheist could easily be a moral absolutist. The problem is not what the individual believes, but by what authority he claims those beliefs to be true.
If, as the definition of God often states, God is benevolent, then that means that God IS "good", and all that can be recognized as good is of God(let's exclude any religions just now, since I'm sure that some of you detest religious scripture's cloudy picture of what God could be). Thus, the creator of the universe contains the quality of ultimate goodness, thereby casting it into it's creation to be acknowledged or not by it's creations.
Now let's also say that this creator wished to create beings that were of free mind and will. In this regard, it would have to create an environment where it was possible for said creations to refuse it's will, or goodness, and choose to do opposite of it. Therefore, God did not create evil, we did, and in order to continue to be a creation of free will, we are the only ones responsible to stop it.
So, the theist who chooses moral relativism is choosing to do other than the nature of the creator he himself believes in.
On the other hand, let's take the absolutist atheist. He does not believe that there is a God, but at the same time believes that his moral beliefs are truth. That's all well and good for the atheist, and I applaud his decision to follow these truths, but for two things. If there is no ultimate force of good in the universe, then the atheist forms these beliefs of his own mind, or from a belief that it is the best thing for society. The problem here is two-fold.
First, the atheist believes that his own mind is more justly correct in it's beliefs than one who disagrees with his morality, and without basis.
The reason for this lies in the second problem: What is best for society can change on a whim. If society were, over the course of decades or centuries, faced with a global population problem of epic proportions, where millions or billions could die of starvation or disease, then it may one day become the best thing for society to destroy many millions of human lives so that the species might survive. In this regard, it would be possible to legitimize the holocaust.
Opposingly, it could be possible that one day, our populations are so diminished that our very survival is threatened. It may then be best for society that even unwilling women be impregnated for our survival.
I would posit that the reason that the theist is a relativist is because of his own greed and fallibility, denying even those truths in which he believes(We see it all the time)
I would also posit that the reason that the atheist is an absolutist is because those truths are real, perceptable, and woven into the nature of creation.
Can you think of any reason an Odinist, or one who worshiped Greek Gods such as Zeus must necessarily be a moral absolutist?
Given the fact that Christianity has one set of laws for Jews and one for non-jews, one set of laws for the old testiment and one for the new testiment, doesn't that make it a relativist religion?
Subjectively defining god(s) to be good doesn't solve the problem of a lack of a framework for moral absolutes any more than defining me to be good. It's still just the subjective opinion of a person/being and not an absolute law of the universe.
Unless it is not subjectively defining the God to be good, but is on the other hand defining good to be of God. The God is the source of the definition, not the other way around. I am not saying "God is good" like I am saying "My Australian Shepherd is a good dog". I am saying that "God is good" like I am me. The framework exists in the many universal traits of good that humans have agreed upon for a long time. Sure, there are some examples of deviants, like cannibals or what have you, but largely, most of the world can tell what is good and what is not. I believe that is because the universe was created by a character who defined the trait.
Can you think of any reason an Odinist, or one who worshiped Greek Gods such as Zeus must necessarily be a moral absolutist?
Given the fact that Christianity has one set of laws for Jews and one for non-jews, one set of laws for the old testiment and one for the new testiment, doesn't that make it a relativist religion?
Judging the possibilities of the attributes of a possible creator can not be done through analyzing the actions of people. If the creator of the universe is a moral compass set to true good, then the early Jews could have missed the mark, being human and all.
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.
