B. W. wrote:You answer and state:
Our opinions must stand on rock solid truths. Science, mathematics and logic are not ideas and play things, they are serious works of discovery.
Yet you say that you do not need a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather or mother to be here.
So does not your statement deny the very science of reason and logic you so advocate?
Sorry, I was trying to reflect what I feel is your point of view. I don't feel it necessary that these things be built on rock solid foundations, and I don't feel that they are.
I've not been advocating science and logic. They are useful and interesting but not ideas to cling to. It mystifies me that people are so sure the universe and God is reasonable and logical. Different people have different ideas as to what is reasonable, what is logical and to what extent these feelings matter.
The general idea I get from most on either side of the line is that at some point non-human, or perhaps even non-physical, parentage is required if one is to remain logical and reasonable. Infinite regression of humanity seems unsatisfactory so we introduce pre-human, God or a bit of both.
Existence is an absolute doesn't really mean much to me. That existence is illusory and temporal seems an equally valid, and meaningless, mode of thought. Counting things is no more a statement of reality than loving things. And the great thing is that you have absolute authority on what constitutes a thing.
B. W. wrote:Even if we did not exist, existence would – this world would, without human beings on it would. Having no human beings to discover and interpret does not mean existence does not exist in a sum total. The universe would still exist and all the planets and two objects plus two more would still equal four objects even without our interpretations. Without a great-great-great-great-grand father and mother you would not exist but we would who had great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- grandparents would exist.
Do you think this universe would exist if God had no plans for humans in it? If God started resting on the afternoon of day six seems like a rather dubious thought experiment.
Again it's back to the tree in the forest. The certainty that things would be as they without being there to verify it. I've been mulling over it for years, your answer is a flat yes and it appears the height of folly to even entertain. Horses for courses and all that. Even physics recognises the importance and impact of observer. The observer has an impact on the situation, it's hard to be to sure of the extent.
An endless regression of humans doesn't cut it for most people. A nonhuman is always introduced at some point in the regression, be it some sort of proto/pre-human, some sort of infinite being, or some sort of odd extraterrestrial happenings.
B. W. wrote:The way human beings interpret the world and universe thru science, etc, does not negate existence if we were not around to apply terms and principles that measure what is.
It doesn't prove it either, a leap of faith in one's own interpretation is required.
....
jlay wrote:Sorry Pros, you are not understanding me. I apologize for not being more clear with the gun example. This isn't about my beliefs vs. yours.
You're arguing for the existence of objective morality, it's a belief as is the God that sustains it. If you're right then you're objectively right and I'm objectively wrong, if you're wrong then we're just two people sharing opinions on a message board.
jlay wrote:I doubt someone with a gun pointed at them will conclude, "oh well, there is no inherent value in my life, therefore go ahead and shoot."
I doubt that too. If one doesn't believe in objective morality, or possibly even God, then why on earth would they not fight for life? It's the world religions that are littered with people calmly accepting death in the knowledge that it'll all be fine. An ego clinging to life is not proof of inherent value.
The major incident involving guns and faces that comes to mind is Bin Laden being shot in the face, the objective wrong of shooting an unarmed man in the face is mitigated by the circumstances of the situation.
You see, it all has to do with what lens you are looking through. It is clear that you are not open to objective morality. In fact, you seem quite determined to not believe it.
I'm not determined not to believe it. It's a reasonable model but it's not one I have total faith in. You're committed to wearing the lenses of classical theism, it's how you view the world, it's what you believe in. Contrary to your opening line, this is about beliefs.
That people place arbitrary values on their own life and the lives of others does not prove that an objective standard of value exists.
If chocolate ice cream makes your stomach turn but vanilla puts a smile on your face it's your own preference, if a rather nasty murder turns your stomach and a fireman risking his life to save a child makes you smile you've stolen the idea from God. Again it's on a scale, you get to choose where opinion ends and trespassing on objective morality commences. Murder may be objectively wrong but the definition of murder is rather elastic. Jainism seems far more in line with the idea that life is inherently valuable than Christianity, Christianity views human life as far more valuable than anything else we choose to call life, Jainism attempts to use a wide angled lens on what is considered alive and valuable.
Saying, you 'see value' in your life, is arbitrary. The situation you mention totally misses the point. It isn't whether you were objectively wronged, but whether your life has inherent value. Apart from OM, there is no way to claim it. Your life isn't any more valuable than the circumstances which led the man to take it. Life has value.
Yes, but deciding that value is beyond the value of the circumstances which built up to and surrounded the event is opinion. Your opinion on the circumstances versus the life isn't worth much without objective moral backing. US & UK soldiers shooting guns at people on the other side of the planet = brave and taking the morning after pill = murder. That's the issue with objective morality, you can fit it into any situation, it helps if you are skilled in logic and reason.
Not at all self-absorbed. This is the same thing that will drive a fireman to risk his own life. A mother to risk her life for her child's. It is seeing the inherent value of life. If you see that as self absorption, I greatly pitty you. To be consistent, you shouldn't see any real value to Ambulance and Fire & Rescue services.
I think I am being consistent. I don't see any real value, as I don't see any real value in money. As with most things I value them more at some points than others. It also drives firemen not to risk their lives in many situations and mothers to not bother risking their lives.
That is a different topic. This thread isn't about 'my religion.' It is about whether OM exists.
Truth has nothing to do with popularity. And the basic notion of what you present here is based in contradiction. Two contradictory ideas can not both be true at the same time. The 'paths' argument is a prime example.
It is about your religion, your religion demands objective morality. If truth is nothing to do with popularity then why demonstrate objective truth using examples that are popular - firemen risking their lives and whatnot.
It may be the case that two contradictory ideas cannot be true at the same time but two contradictory ideas could both be a bit wrong. Clashes do not mean that one must be correct and the other false.
Hey, if you don't want to believe in OM, that's your perogative. But have some guts and at least live consistent with that view.
In what way am I not being consistent? It appears the only way I could convince you is if I was consistently demonstrating behaviour you label as objectively bad, the moment I do something you label objectively good is the same moment your worldview is confirmed. The trouble with objective morality is that it can't be consistent, it always has to adapt to the situation.
jlay wrote:As I said before. You are welcome to reject OM. I just think you should be consistent and live like it. I grow so tired of hearing Atheist boast that they are moral people. Yet, there is absolutey no reason to boast about living up to a standard, when you in fact reject the notion of standards. How can one say they are moral, when morality is simply personal or societal preference? If you've ever gotten an 'A' on a math test, you know that you met a standard. There was a right answer. Not multiple answers that could be deemed right, but only one, correct answer. Now imagine that the teacher decides that all answers are right, because they reject objective truth. Or, that no one is right for the same reason. If you are consistent you would have to conceed that you could only object based on your preferences. And thus the same goes for lying, murder and theft.
I got few A's in mathematics. That's not too tough. Living an objectively good life is impossible, you may as well plead on God for mercy.
). 