OK theists, school me on logical absolutes (AKA, Calvinist - you out there?) (genesis, atheist)

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

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.

What questions have I failed to answer and which assertions have I failed to respond to directly? None. Meanwhile, in only my third response since you first posted to me, you've suddenly decided to pick and choose which questions and assertions you wish to respond to.

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

The burden is on you not me to provide you an alternative - 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 alternatives.

What "burden" is on me? I've stated over and over in this thread my REASON for belief in the existence of moral absolutes. Do you expect me to treat you as a child and spoon feed you the layman's view of the classical arguments or are you not capable of understanding the arguments for yourself?

With respect to the moral argument, there's really nothing complicated here. Either God (transcendent being) exists and has communicated moral absolutes (transcendent law) of God does not exist and morality is relative -nothing more than a human construct. What you apparently choose to refer to as "trying to pigeon hole" is actually nothing more than sensible reasoning/applied logic.

You seem to suggest other "alternatives" while, at the same time, refusing to explain what these supposed "alternatives" might be. How convenient.

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

If you would have read my post and the links - your questions would have been answered.

You asked me for the research - I gave you a number of researchers, their websites, books, and even some videos to 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.

Nope. I never asked you for any research. Am I supposed to be impressed by the links you've provided? Did you stay up all night putting them together?

If I were interested in these links I'm sure I could have located any one of them for myself. I happen to be having the discussion with you and, silly me, I actually had an expectation that you would respond personally to my questions and assertions. How utterly silly of me.

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

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?

Thanks for the link "buddy." What does the link show? Apparently you were engaged in a debate with a couple of folks that were attempting an argument based upon circular reasoning - reasoning that "the Bible says moral absolutes exist so we apparently should conclude they exist" or some such thing. You seemed to be enjoying yourself, and why not, their obvious inept efforts at making a reasonable argument would have made most anyone else look like a pure genius - even you.

The OP of your link did nothing to address my assertion. There should be no question that Rahab transgressed an absolute (transcendent) moral standard. The question was never whether or not she committed sin by transgression of a moral imperative, it was quite obvious she had. My question had to do with why IYO she was being held up as one of the 'who's who' hero's of the Judeo-Christian faith. None of which was ever addressed in your other discussion thread.

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I have noticed that you engaged others with this similar topic - TWO YEARS AGO -

I'm glad you brought this up - you beat me to it.

In that thread I posed the OP in such a way so as to force the respondents to choose between the hard corps logic of nihilism or accede to the existence of a transcendent law and a transcendent law giver. The thread serves as a great example because virtually everyone who responded wanted to deny nihilistic philosophy while, at the same time, denying the existence of God and moral absolutes. They wanted to cling to a non-existent, nonsensical middle ground.

Now, here we are, two years later and still the same tactic. I do thank you for bringing this up.

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

An additional debate with one of the top dog apologist for this argument - everyone will benifit from it.


YouTube - Is God Necessary for Morality? (Kagan vs Craig) 1/10

You may also read Shelly's or Craig's material for further issues.

It's interesting that Craig's rebuttal is not included in the clip.

Well, is something wrong because it's wrong, or is something wrong because the atheist says it's wrong? According to Kagan, it's wrong because it's wrong.

I guess we're all just supposed to take his word that whatever he personally determines to be an absolute automatically qualifies as an absolute even though Kagan possesses no absolute authority.

Also, I would add that I've already freely affirmed that human beings have natural inherit moral abilities. In other words, it's not necessary for one to affirm the existence of God or moral absolutes in order to engage in acts that are commonly viewed as moral or good.

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Let us be reminded that you made the affirmative position so it it up to you to account for it whether or not there is an alternative position.

Quite right. I've affirmed that my belief in God and moral absolutes is reasonable and logical.

P.S. : I'll agree to watch the other 2+ hours of video's you've linked if you agree to watch 2+ hours of video's that I link - fair enough?

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

It's interesting that Craig's rebuttal is not included in the clip.

Well, is something wrong because it's wrong, or is something wrong because the atheist says it's wrong? According to Kagan, it's wrong because it's wrong.

I guess we're all just supposed to take his word that whatever he personally determines to be an absolute automatically qualifies as an absolute even though Kagan possesses no absolute authority.

Also, I would add that I've already freely affirmed that human beings have natural inherit moral abilities. In other words, it's not necessary for one to affirm the existence of God or moral absolutes in order to engage in acts that are commonly viewed as moral or good.



Quite right. I've affirmed that my belief in God and moral absolutes is reasonable and logical.

P.S. : I'll agree to watch the other 2+ hours of video's you've linked if you agree to watch 2+ hours of video's that I link - fair enough?

The debate has 10 parts - each about 10 min.

[LogicIsYourFriend]

I think it's reasonable to believe that moral absolutes do not exist, because morals are clearly relative to the culture and even the individual.

[tgnostic]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

I think it's reasonable to believe that moral absolutes do not exist, because morals are clearly relative to the culture and even the individual.

How is that reasonable. I am either an individual for the moral support of Nato trying to back the Restoration of Afghanistan to the justified leadership of the people there. Is that absolute or is that relative for the faith in trade and oil developing of the underdeveloped industrial ideals for the goood life of private respect and security? The relative side didn't become believable for the time since Musharraf left office in Pakistan, and since the inception of the Al-qaeda leadership as merely an attempt on resisting the western concepts for equality. The absolute side I can accept or refuse for the wishing of new communication lines with the military in those countries and in respect of their cultures.

The new communication is best regarded absolute for morals after the recent execution of Osama Bin Laden (it is less absolute knowledge?)

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

What "burden" is on me? I've stated over and over in this thread my REASON for belief in the existence of moral absolutes. Do you expect me to treat you as a child and spoon feed you the layman's view of the classical arguments or are you not capable of understanding the arguments for yourself?

Let's see - reason for my belief ... is the classical arguments - Sure. What do you expect me to do - a Masters thesis on why eveyone of those arguments has problems? They themselves would need defending not just presented. So it is a leap of faith nothing more? Funny how faith always is never just blind but based upon some reason even if illogical. Nevertheless, those reasons should be examined and defended. Faith is usually for lack of knowledge the more knowledge we have the better the reasons we can base our leaps of inference to some conclusion. Some of those leaps are gigantic in the absence of any proof other than a nice deductive argument. And I believe you done nothing to show that absolute transcendent Moral Laws exist, particularly with th knowledge that I have tried to share with you about morality which are showing real hard facts not just infrences form logic but from science.

With respect to the moral argument, there's really nothing complicated here. Either God (transcendent being) exists and has communicated moral absolutes (transcendent law) of God does not exist and morality is relative -nothing more than a human construct.

'Either / Or' Fallacy - the video of the debate at least showed that much.

What you apparently choose to refer to as "trying to pigeon hole" is actually nothing more than sensible reasoning/applied logic.

No it's a Stawman. I never made an argument for or against Nihilism which you obviously think is the only game in town - See above.

You seem to suggest other "alternatives" while, at the same time, refusing to explain what these supposed "alternatives" might be. How convenient.

See above debate video as well as Ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which list some options like moral realism under normative ethics. I do not advocate any at this time but find it quit presumptuous to relegate the issues to your either or fallacy. Oh yeah, even if we adopted Nihilism it still would not establish your case - for you would have to show it's failure and demonstrate the succes of your position - you do not win by default.

Nope. I never asked you for any research. Am I supposed to be impressed by the links you've provided? Did you stay up all night putting them together?

Then why did you say - 'Would you care to let me in on the specific research - the research that you personally find to be most convincing?' in post #37.

Thanks for the link "buddy." What does the link show? Apparently you were engaged in a debate with a couple of folks that were attempting an argument based upon circular reasoning - reasoning that "the Bible says moral absolutes exist so we apparently should conclude they exist" or some such thing. You seemed to be enjoying yourself, and why not, their obvious inept efforts at making a reasonable argument would have made most anyone else look like a pure genius - even you.

Personal Attack. Ad-hominem

The OP of your link did nothing to address my assertion. There should be no question that Rahab transgressed an absolute (transcendent) moral standard. The question was never whether or not she committed sin by transgression of a moral imperative, it was quite obvious she had. My question had to do with why IYO she was being held up as one of the 'who's who' hero's of the Judeo-Christian faith. None of which was ever addressed in your other discussion thread.

You were not very clear in regard to Rahab and did not state some of those things. So, she did sin by breaking this absolute rule - ok.

First, it is Irrelevent to the issue of whether there exist abosultes or not - it seems this is an in-house-Bible issue that seems to be more of a problem for the Absolutist.

Second, she may have been honored for her faith in Hebrews but in James 2:25 she was 'justified by her works' - did that include the lie that allowed the messengers to go another way? I think so. Anyway, it really is irrelevent to your case but helpful to mine.

In that thread I posed the OP in such a way so as to force the respondents to choose between the hard corps logic of nihilism or accede to the existence of a transcendent law and a transcendent law giver. The thread serves as a great example because virtually everyone who responded wanted to deny nihilistic philosophy while, at the same time, denying the existence of God and moral absolutes. They wanted to cling to a non-existent, nonsensical middle ground.

I am not responsible for anyone elses posts or ideas but you are for yours.

See above debate and link for other options other than nihilism. Nihilism does not allow for meaning or significance nor for dicrimination among acts or thier catergorization into moral frameworks - it's all equal - yet there are real needs that are required by humans and require certain actions and we attributes moral significance to them (see the deabte for those terms are specificaly addressed). It also proposes that morals are just human inventions with no deeper foundation. The research I sited as well as the other philosophical ideas argue differently. These morals maybe emergent from the basic neuro-biology of the brain and the epiphnomena it creates. We act and desire certain things based on these foundational categories of the mind and needs of the body - this can approach objectivity (in the defintion that I gave) and accounts for the ubiquitous principles like, not murdering is good, across time an cultures. It is simply because of human ontology - it is not just social convention. This gives weight to our actions based on things like pain versus pleasure in the face of causal agents with free will. Hence we ascribe responsibility to these actions and punish accordingly. This is all evaluation through our other faculty called reason - so the lableling of actions as good or bad is really based on reason and human need - whicha are all veridical. If you violate these you are acting wrongly.

But to say that becasue humans have a moral sense and that some of these principles are cross-cultural requires a transcendent Law and a God in whom they are grounded and that we are going to be held accountable in a cosmic sense does not follow. The classical arguments do not establish it either.

Like I said I do not think we are going to get any further - you can post your video that you mentioned (I did not see it) if you want and I will be glad to watch it.

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by tgnostic

How is that reasonable. I am either an individual for the moral support of Nato trying to back the Restoration of Afghanistan to the justified leadership of the people there. Is that absolute or is that relative for the faith in trade and oil developing of the underdeveloped industrial ideals for the goood life of private respect and security? The relative side didn't become believable for the time since Musharraf left office in Pakistan, and since the inception of the Al-qaeda leadership as merely an attempt on resisting the western concepts for equality. The absolute side I can accept or refuse for the wishing of new communication lines with the military in those countries and in respect of their cultures.

The new communication is best regarded absolute for morals after the recent execution of Osama Bin Laden (it is less absolute knowledge?)

Do you make your posts indiscernible on purpose?

If we had absolute morality, everyone would have the same morals. There would be no moral grey areas.

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

Do you make your posts indiscernible on purpose?

If we had absolute morality, everyone would have the same morals. There would be no moral grey areas.

Yes but I think the theist would argue that there are these objective/absolutes that are grounded in God and that we have this veil of ignorance (the Fall) that then requires the special revelation of the Bible to tell us what to follow. They exist out there in God so we don't have them. Convienent Eh! Hence they seperate, rightly so, for arguments sake but practically very important problems will arise as you note.

They then focus the guns on the former rather than the latter. (difference between the ontological aspects and the epistemological aspects). Eventually the two must meet for a complete Divine Command Theory.

They will then try to get the naturalist to ground moral values, duties, and accountability. They will then say that they find it hard to see how they can do this (the Debate I linked covers this very well on both sides).

They then say that the grounding that is provided (non-nihilistic) just happens to be a fiction or social convintion (hence no real value or significance - the video deals with this also).

What is interesting is that this claim is exactly what the concept and Idea of God seems to be as well ---- Fiction and Social Convention in order to give some significance to their moral sense. They just pushed the objective nature of the issue to abstract eternal entities to solve the problem rather than some sort of scientific or human reason (as also noted in the debate) for the objective significance. Then they get all caught up in the abstract arguments that can be contolled by semantics and nice little deductive syllogisms - which everyone knows has no necessary correspondence to reality - it may have coherance - but that is it at best.

I find it odd that this absolute law has such eternal consequences that if violated it will send someone to hell for eternity and yet the epistemological knot that must be undone to see these truths is vast. Of course once again this leads to the theological aspects to support the theory - special revelation about lost paradise, fallen humanity, souls, saviour (which overides the whole moral by covering your sins and negating justice for you of course), new heaven new earth and cosmic significance.

Anyway, your point about if we had absolute morality (which rightly noted we don't) we would all have the same is duley noted. That got me thinking so I posted the above thoughts.

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

They exist out there in God so we don't have them. Convienent Eh!

Thanks for your insight. I wanted to comment on the above quoted statement. If this is the argument, that moral absolutes exist but only "in God", then they are as unobservable as "God". Furthermore, it seems one would have to observe "God" in order to observe these moral absolutes. Using one to prove the other would be almost.. circular. Not to mention baseless since neither is observable in the first place.

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

Thanks for your insight. I wanted to comment on the above quoted statement. If this is the argument, that moral absolutes exist but only "in God", then they are as unobservable as "God". Furthermore, it seems one would have to observe "God" in order to observe these moral absolutes. Using one to prove the other would be almost.. circular. Not to mention baseless since neither is observable in the first place.

Yes, which is why they add other deductive arguments for the existence of God or theological arguments. Also, I have a problem with the 1st premise of the moral argument - although I admit it is hard to nail down - If objective moral values exist then God exist. The main problem is the 2nd premise - Objective moral values exist. But lets look at the first premise.

Christians define God as an indivisable being made up of attributes (of course you cannot divide God in Christian theology). One of them being his morals attribute/s which makes him - The Good - The standard. The interesting thing is that without these attributes he is not God and God is not unless he is these attributes - yet they state the first premise as if the attribute of morals is seperate from God. It is as if they say - If God exists then the Good exist - which is nothing more than saying If God exists then God exists.

Remember the only reason people strated to ground the morals in God's nature is, partly, because of the Euthyphro Dilemma. If they are not part of His nature then either God is subject to the morals that exist apart from him and therefor they have greater weight than God himself or they stem from his will in which case they are arbitrary and need no reasons - He can just command anything to be good - like rape. Henece they must stem form his nature which is the Good - but the Good is then desribe as those Absolutle moral values.

I am still not sure I am right on this but there seems to be something wrong with the way they organize the terms. When you look at the deductive argument it is sound as such but when you start to grasp with the terms - there is something Fishy. Anyway, I focus mainly on the 2nd premise. Challenge that.