Page 9 of 16

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:17 pm
by PaulSacramento
The reason I asked the question is because I don't believe there is a difference. Right and wrong only comprises of judgment calls we make about "acts", which you conceded could be viewed as subjective. What you call right and wrong which is absolute, I do not believe even exists, That's why I asked you to describe the difference; I want to know where it is, what is it based upon, who has access to it, etc. I am looking for details.
They've been given to you already Ken.

That there is such a thing as right and wrong ( and it is universally acknowledge by all that there is) makes morals ( which deal with right and wrong) absolute and objective as opposed subjective.
The acts that can be deemed right or wrong may be subjective and be "judgment calls" as you put it BUT the actual understand there there IS A right and wrong is not.
In other words, it doesn't matter if people agree that ACT 1 is right or wrong, it only matters that there IS right or wrong and, as I pointed out earlier, all it takes is to see that every person, every culture at ANY time in history ALL have things that are right and wrong ( that those things differ is not relevant to the statement that right and wrong exist).

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:36 pm
by Kenny
jlay wrote:
Okay. If we agree Objective morality would require a base; (or as Jlay would prefer “source”) allow me to present a scenario. In the scenario I am assuming you say the moral source is Jesus/God of the Bible. If this is incorrect please explain this source and I will adjust my scenario accordingly.

If you believe behavior “X” is immoral/wrong because according to the bible, Jesus/God (the moral source) says it is wrong, but the next guy says behavior “X” is moral/good because according to his Holy Text (a religious book you do not subscribe to) it says his moral source (some deity you do not subscribe to) says it is good, what right do you have to say your claim is credible and his is not? In other words; other than blind faith, what system do you use to verify that your moral source is authentic and his is not?
Ken, 'above is the question you say I haven't answered. Even though this wasn't addressed to me, I did in fact offer an answer. Please stop with the false accusations. by jlay » Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:48 am
Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean it isn't one.

Let me clarify although I've made these exact comments to you before.
The Bible has variety of moral law. Some of that law is prescriptive, or covenantal law. It is ONLY for a certain people at a certain time in a certain place.
I used the example studying with my daughter last night. Randomly flipped open the bible to Deuteronomy and read one of the prescriptive laws. Is this law for us today? Laws regulating morality is not OM. You are again missing the ontology.
The veracity of the Bible is a well argued subject, but it isn't the same subject as OM. So, your question is a non-sequitur. You can keep making the same question over and over, but it doesn't make it a valid question. Our inability to answer an invalid question isn't our problem, it's yours.


Now, the bible also reveals objective moral truths. Remember, the law itself isn't OM. Otherwise, how would we ever argue that some laws are just while others are not? But there are things mentioned in the Bible that are right and wrong for all people in all times and all places. Murder (and this is a very specific term) is wrong in all times and all places. So you aren't confused, killing in self-defense isn't murder in this sense. Because, preserving oneself from murder, while using force to do so, is also appealing to the EXACT same objective moral standard; that it is wrong for someone to maliciously attempt to end my life.

Now listen closely. Murder isn't wrong because the Bible says so. The Bible says so, because it is wrong. Murder was wrong before the Bible was ever written. So, please, for all that is good, stop making these erroneous statements. For the umpteenth time, the case for OM does NOT exclude subjective moral interpretation. Please, please, please, stop implying this.

So again, the issue of how we come to know what is moral is different than whether moral values and duties exist. You made the comment that you understand the epistemological and ontological distinctions. If so, then it's time to start acting like it. W e both agree, if OM exist then there is a source. But you are extrapolating this inference too far and denying it prejudicially, not logically. You don't accept a creator, or OM. And since you have rightly concluded that OM denotes a source, you emotionally object. Well, too bad.

But you are cutting off your nose to spite your face, and looking rather silly while doing it. Whether the source of OM is a transcendent one is another hotly debated subject. But, it is a unique subject. You can't even get to this point because you have stubbornly refused to acknowledge the flaws and implications of your subjective morality. For the sake of the argument, the source of OM could be transcendent. That is why I mentioned Sam Harris. He believes in OM while rejecting a transcendent source.

I don't how to explain better than this. If you disagree, please don't waste your time asking how I know the Bible is better than the Koran. That has NOTHING to do with whether objective moral values and duties exist. If you want to continue with this, then you are being obtuse, and it's akin to cyber pouting. It's also arrogant to continue to make fallacious demands on this forum. If that is your response, fine, but perhaps this forum isn't the place for you. I'll leave that up to the mods.
You’re doing it again. Let me paraphrase the question I asked so it is clear.

First we both agreed if objective morality exists, a source is required.
We also agreed you believe your God is this source that is required. Now the question is:

If a person has a different God that he believes is the source of objective morality, how do you verify your source is authentic and his is not?

That’s it! That is the only question I asked. The question is about verifying your source of morality; not old testament laws, comparing the bible to the koran, the veracity of the bible, subjective moral interpretations, epistemological and ontological distinctions, and all that other noise you keep bringing up, all that stuff has nothing to do with the question I asked. You’ve managed to answer every question imaginable except for the one question I actually asked, so please address the question I asked, not everything else.


Ken

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:44 pm
by Kenny
PaulSacramento wrote:
The reason I asked the question is because I don't believe there is a difference. Right and wrong only comprises of judgment calls we make about "acts", which you conceded could be viewed as subjective. What you call right and wrong which is absolute, I do not believe even exists, That's why I asked you to describe the difference; I want to know where it is, what is it based upon, who has access to it, etc. I am looking for details.
They've been given to you already Ken.

That there is such a thing as right and wrong ( and it is universally acknowledge by all that there is) makes morals ( which deal with right and wrong) absolute and objective as opposed subjective.
The acts that can be deemed right or wrong may be subjective and be "judgment calls" as you put it BUT the actual understand there there IS A right and wrong is not.
In other words, it doesn't matter if people agree that ACT 1 is right or wrong, it only matters that there IS right or wrong and, as I pointed out earlier, all it takes is to see that every person, every culture at ANY time in history ALL have things that are right and wrong ( that those things differ is not relevant to the statement that right and wrong exist).
If universally acknowledged right and wrong exists as you claim, and ACT 1 is right or wrong weather humans agree or not, this implies right and wrong goes beyond human interpretation. If that's the case; who decides what is right and what is wrong, and other than blind faith; what system do you employ to verify they are telling the truth?

Ken

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 2:14 pm
by Kenny
Jlay
Here is your problem. Fine, but what you must accept, on your own moral basis, is that it is equally valid to state, 'what is harmful is good and what is helpful is bad.' All you are doing is kicking the proverbial moral can down the road.

Ken
True! Someone else could say that; but he didn’t ask someone else, he asked me. Again; what does it mean to embrase the position that morality is subjective?

Jlay
Truth. That regardless of our opinion, there is a way we ought to behave.

Ken
If it is regardless of opinion; this implies truth goes beyond human concept. If this is the case, because you are human; how do you know this is the truth? Is it just a matter of blind faith? In other words; If God decides truth, how do you know this since you are just a human who cannot recognize truth when you see it?

Jlay
You need to show how that is a contradiction. Absurd.

Ken
If it had no meaning to humans; humans wouldn’t bother to construct it. The fact that it is a human construct, means it has meaning to humans.

Jlay
Great, then stop using the terms that way. Saying that murdering can be equally good for one person and equally bad for another doesn't take away meaning from the word good? Sorry buddy, but this is an epic fail. So, murder is the same (morally speaking) as non-murder?

Ken
The fact that there are mentally sick people who believe murder is good, proves my point! Unless…. you can figure out a way to demonstrate that they are wrong. Remember, to simply say they are wrong; you are doing the same thing I do; voice your opinion. But to say they are wrong based upon fact, for that you would have to demonstrate your facts.

Jlay

People interpret reality. We agree on this. Stop pretending like this supports your position. It doesn't.
We've asked you how you decide, and you've yet to offer anything
.

Ken
No. I’ve made it clear what we should believe is decided by mankind. You believe what we should believe goes beyond mankind; so I ask you’ who decides what we should believe.


Jlay
So, we agree it can be perceived as virtuous to the one who believes it. So, is it? Or, better, is it an equally valid moral position? That's what I mean but the implications of your position.

Ken
So we get to the point that he says “yes” and I say “no”. Who breaks the tie, and how do you know this tie-breaker is telling the truth?


Ken

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 7:45 am
by jlay
Kenny wrote:
First we both agreed if objective morality exists, a source is required.
We also agreed you believe your God is this source that is required. Now the question is:

If a person has a different God that he believes is the source of objective morality, how do you verify your source is authentic and his is not?

That’s it! That is the only question I asked. The question is about verifying your source of morality; not old testament laws, comparing the bible to the koran, the veracity of the bible, subjective moral interpretations, epistemological and ontological distinctions, and all that other noise you keep bringing up, all that stuff has nothing to do with the question I asked. You’ve managed to answer every question imaginable except for the one question I actually asked, so please address the question I asked, not everything else.


Ken
Ken, how can you exclude those things (the veracity of the Bible) when someone is trying to determine whether the Bible is revelation from the source of OM? Veracity means truth. Are you saying we don't need to examine the truth claims of the Bible to know whether the Bible is true?
I've addressed the question. There are numerous methods of examining which religious system (if any) corresponds to a transcendent moral law giver. There are exhaustive discussions on how we examine the truth claims, of Islam, Mormonism, and of course Christianity, among others. It would take pages to unpack those arguments. If you are genuinely interested, Ravi Zacharias has a good book, which is a concise introduction to the subject, titled Jesus Among Other Gods. In addition, there are numerous past discussions on this forum.

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:23 am
by jlay
Kenny wrote: True! Someone else could say that; but he didn’t ask someone else, he asked me. Again; what does it mean to embrase the position that morality is subjective?
Kenny, the issue isn't whether he could ask someone else. The issue is whether that person's opinion is an equally valid position.

If it is regardless of opinion; this implies truth goes beyond human concept. If this is the case, because you are human; how do you know this is the truth? Is it just a matter of blind faith? In other words; If God decides truth, how do you know this since you are just a human who cannot recognize truth when you see it?
You honestly can't recognize truth when you see it? How did you make this conclusion? If you can't know truth, then why are you making so many truth claims about morality?
Let me make it clear that I patently reject what you imply in your question, and the onus is on you to demonstrate that moral, intelligent beings are incapable of recognizing truth? Even when it comes to morality. Also, you will never hear me appeal to blind faith. So, stop making straw man arguments.
Although, having this discussion with you certainly gives me reason to think that some people are incapable (more likely unwilling) of knowing truth.

Earlier you appealed to logic and reason, but this doesn't work in your case. Your question implies a hyper-skepticsm. Basically, how do we know anything? Well, you earlier said we know by using logic and reason. Ok, please provide me material evidence for logic and reason. You can't. You'd be forced to say they are also human constructs. And then you are left with circular reasoning. But the problem is that you are appealing to logic and reason in an objective sense. Further you are separating logic from morality. On what basis?
If it had no meaning to humans; humans wouldn’t bother to construct it. The fact that it is a human construct, means it has meaning to humans.
This is good. You really ought to read what you write before you submit. Cart before the horse. Morality has meaning to humans, so they construct it? How does something that you say doesn't exist (objectively) have meaning to someone?

The fact that there are mentally sick people who believe murder is good, proves my point! Unless…. you can figure out a way to demonstrate that they are wrong. Remember, to simply say they are wrong; you are doing the same thing I do; voice your opinion. But to say they are wrong based upon fact, for that you would have to demonstrate your facts.
Proves your point? They are wrong based on objective reality. Otherwise you'd have to say that people believing murder is good, is an equally valid subjective moral conclusion. But you don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't refer to them as "sick."
Saying they are sick is saying that there is something impacting their way of thinking THE RIGHT WAY when it comes to moral choices. And thus, they are behaving is a way they OUGHT not behave. Unless you'd like to try to convince us that being sick is the same as being well. Again, you keep appealing to OM. Ken, your position is contradictory and self-defeating. If we let you talk long enough, you always provide examples which light the fuse to blow up your own argument.

Earlier you also appealed to things that are harmful by definition. Whose definition? Mankind's? Again, circular reasoning. Or, has man rightly interpreted that somethings actually ARE harmful? Of course this term is based on an objective standard. Is it BETTER to do things that help or harm? It first presumes that humans have intrinsic value and that there is a way we OUGHT to treat each other.
If we follow your reasoning we might as well let the criminally insane go free because you think we can't prove they are wrong? Me thinks you are criminally insane. Your examples are getting bizarre.

No. I’ve made it clear what we should believe is decided by mankind. You believe what we should believe goes beyond mankind; so I ask you’ who decides what we should believe
Should?
Did you hear that everyone?? Ken said WE SHOULD. He is AGAIN smuggling in objective morality. Should? According to who? You are implying that there is a way we OUGHT to believe (morally speaking). Your appeal is to "mankind." Fine.
But you have contradicted this multiple times. I gave examples of societies (mankind) that might define puppy torture as virtuous. (For a authentic example, we could look at Nazi Germany.) I then stated that following your line of thinking, that you OUGHT to comply. You said, no. Without any explanation of course. But this is contradictory to your statement. You are saying we OUGHT to comply to what mankind decides. And as soon as the implications of that reasoning are turned back on you, you say, "No." This appeals to moral values being objective.
So we get to the point that he says “yes” and I say “no”. Who breaks the tie, and how do you know this tie-breaker is telling the truth?
Obviously Ken, I break the tie. See how easy that was. :wave:

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 1:03 pm
by Kenny
Jlay
Kenny, the issue isn't whether he could ask someone else. The issue is whether that person's opinion is an equally valid position.

Ken
I say it is not equally valid because it goes against what I believe is right. IOW I believe my opinions are more valid that all others. Obviously if I considered all opinions equal, I would be equally open to all opinions and wouldn’t be able to decide anything.

Jlay
You honestly can't recognize truth when you see it? How did you make this conclusion?

Ken
Aren’t you the one who claims objective truth goes beyond human concept? I recognize subjective truth. Subjective truth does not require you go beyond mankind to acquire it.

Jlay
me make it clear that I patently reject what you imply in your question, and the onus is on you to demonstrate that moral, intelligent beings are incapable of recognizing truth?

Ken
Fair enough! Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. So if morally intelligent beings CAN recognize truth, what did you mean when you said

“Truth. That regardless of our opinion, there is a way we ought to behave”

as the difference between right and wrong vs what people perceive as right and wrong?

Jlay
How does something that you say doesn't exist (objectively) have meaning to someone?

Ken
It exists subjectively.

Jlay
Proves your point? They are wrong based on objective reality. Otherwise you'd have to say that people believing murder is good, is an equally valid subjective moral conclusion. But you don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't refer to them as "sick."

Ken
As previously mentioned, Subjective does not mean all opinions are equally valid. I believe my opinions are superior to all others (if I thought someone else's opinion were superior to mine, I would adopt their opinion and make it mine as well) so because his opinion goes against mine, in my subjective opinion; he is wrong.


Jlay
Earlier you also appealed to things that are harmful by definition. Whose definition? Mankind’s?

Ken
My definition.


Jlay
Should?
Did you hear that everyone?? Ken said WE SHOULD. He is AGAIN smuggling in objective morality.



Ken
Don't get all excited; I was just repeating you. You said “what somebody can believe is different than what they should believe” Those were your words; nor mine. I asked who decides what we should believe?

Jlay
Obviously Ken, I break the tie. See how easy that was

Ken
If the source of morality goes beyond mankind, (your claim not mine) this source is the only one who can break the tie.


Jlay
Ken, how can you exclude those things (the veracity of the Bible) when someone is trying to determine whether the Bible is revelation from the source of OM? Veracity means truth. Are you saying we don't need to examine the truth claims of the Bible to know whether the Bible is true?
I've addressed the question. There are numerous methods of examining which religious system (if any) corresponds to a transcendent moral law giver. There are exhaustive discussions on how we examine the truth claims, of Islam, Mormonism, and of course Christianity, among others. It would take pages to unpack those arguments. If you are genuinely interested, Ravi Zacharias has a good book, which is a concise introduction to the subject, titled Jesus Among Other Gods. In addition, there are numerous past discussions on this forum.


Ken
So if I understand you correctly; research and examination is how you conclude your source is authentic and the others are not
Thank-you! You’ve finally answered my question. That is the type of answer I was looking for. Even though it does confirm my claim that as a human being you can recognize truth when you see it, you did answer my question. Thanks.


Ken

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:28 pm
by Kenny
Danieltwotwenty wrote:Logic tells us that absolute truth can be known, but can we know if we have absolute truth?
What does "absolute truth" mean? Does it mean there is a one answer that answers all questions? Does it mean there is a best answer for each question? And is it open to the possibility that some questions may have a lots of different answers each of them equal?

Ken

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:39 pm
by melanie
Someone should have asked this long ago!
Think of the discussions that lie around the question of absolute truth and the subjective vs objective truth debate.
Ohh hang on......
Been there already :esurprised:
:mrgreen:

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 6:46 am
by Kurieuo
Ken, I'd like a different approach with you, if you don't mind.
Just ask some questions that I'd like your honest response on.

Question: Are humans above the natural order? In other words, can/do we transcend nature...?

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:57 am
by Kenny
Kurieuo wrote:Ken, I'd like a different approach with you, if you don't mind.
Just ask some questions that I'd like your honest response on.

Question: Are humans above the natural order? In other words, can/do we transcend nature...?
No. I don't believe anything goes beyond nature.

Ken

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:35 pm
by Kurieuo
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Ken, I'd like a different approach with you, if you don't mind.
Just ask some questions that I'd like your honest response on.

Question: Are humans above the natural order? In other words, can/do we transcend nature...?
No. I don't believe anything goes beyond nature.
Is it wrong for us to deplete the Earth of its natural resources and send species extinct?

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 5:33 pm
by Kenny
Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Ken, I'd like a different approach with you, if you don't mind.
Just ask some questions that I'd like your honest response on.

Question: Are humans above the natural order? In other words, can/do we transcend nature...?
No. I don't believe anything goes beyond nature.
Is it wrong for us to deplete the Earth of its natural resources and send species extinct?
Of course context must be taken into consideration; but on it's most basic level, I would say such action is wrong and foolish.

Ken

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 5:39 pm
by Kurieuo
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Ken, I'd like a different approach with you, if you don't mind.
Just ask some questions that I'd like your honest response on.

Question: Are humans above the natural order? In other words, can/do we transcend nature...?
No. I don't believe anything goes beyond nature.
Is it wrong for us to deplete the Earth of its natural resources and send species extinct?
Of course context must be taken into consideration; but on it's most basic level, I would say such action is wrong and foolish.
Would it be a bad thing if all of humanity were wiped out?

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 5:54 pm
by Kenny
Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Ken, I'd like a different approach with you, if you don't mind.
Just ask some questions that I'd like your honest response on.

Question: Are humans above the natural order? In other words, can/do we transcend nature...?
No. I don't believe anything goes beyond nature.
Is it wrong for us to deplete the Earth of its natural resources and send species extinct?
Of course context must be taken into consideration; but on it's most basic level, I would say such action is wrong and foolish.
Would it be a bad thing if all of humanity were wiped out?
Yes