Page 11 of 30

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:34 pm
by B. W.
touchingcloth wrote:Do you agree that there are some moral absolutes we should expect to find regardless of whether there is an objective morality?...Do you agree that there are some moral absolutes that are necessary both in a universe/world/society that has objective morality, and one that doesn't?

EDIT - I think I've noticed what may be causing our confusion...I was using "moral absolutes" to in the sense that you used in an earlier post ("morals that are absolute throughout all of humanity") rather than the other sense ("absolutely moral, as guaged by an objective standard"). Hope that clears things up a bit?
Touchingcloth,

To answer you, I'll use the life boat scenario again with a little more refinement and you tell me what is being discovered is objective.

Life boat scenario: A boat sinks and five people arrive at a life raft that can hold and sustain only four people. Moral Dilemma: Who do you throw overboard?

The scenario is not a proof text on how morals evolved but rather that there does indeed exists an objective moral standard which to gauge the value one places on life is correct or not. This situation ethic scenario in reality is uncovering the absolute value and worth of life, not moral relativity.

However, if all is morally relative, and there are no objective standard, then everyone should jump overboard and die as there is no value to life — why bother for anyone to survive as we all came from slime? But there is a value to life and it is uncovered in exploring the varied answers people give to this dilemma.

Some may answer that the old should die and be tossed overboard for the greater good of the many. That is a life value statement, as well as if all took turns in the life boat, rationing food and water until rescued. Who values life more? The absolute value one has for life exists despite ones behavior of throwing another overboard or rationing.

The real value is the value of life; how you live it and behave is another matter. You can be the good decent progressive who determines who gets thrown overboard because the needs of the many outweigh the few or a conservative who wants people to work together to achieve the best possible good for all, working and taking turns of self sacrifice.

Both demonstrate their relative moral value each hold for life proving that that there is an absolute Moral Value for Life which they gauge his/her answer on which is stated as - Life has indeed has Value.

If life has no value - why save anyone? If life has no value, then why toss anyone overboard or ration? See how discovery is made into an existent objective moral standard that declares - Life has Value.

But, then, what if one person voluntarily swam away and gave their life over to death so that the other four can live? Who therefore demonstrates the absolute value for life more?

One - Would it be the good decent noble Liberal who tosses overboard for the greater good?

Two - Would it be the Conservative who seeks by shared self sacrifice equal betterment for all by working together?

Three - Or the one who voluntarily surrendered their life in exchange so that the others may live?

“For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly,” Romans 5:6

Who demonstrates that there is such a thing as an absolute value for life? Answer the Moral Law Giver, who values life so that we can know learn to value it as well.

And for this, how can you remain disrespectful to the one who gave his life so that you may live?

One swam away from the life boat so that you may live, touchingcolth…

What are you learning about yourself and value for life you hold?
-
-
-

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:51 pm
by ageofknowledge
B. W. wrote:Life boat scenario: A boat sinks and five people arrive at a life raft that can hold and sustain only four people. Moral Dilemma: Who do you throw overboard?
Jac

:pound:

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:02 pm
by jlay
Yep, I was thinking there was a good joke in there somewhere.

A Jew, A muslim, A Presbyterian, a Baptist and an Atheist are in a life raft...............

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:05 pm
by ageofknowledge
jlay wrote:Yep, I was thinking there was a good joke in there somewhere.

A Jew, A muslim, A Presbyterian, a Baptist and an Atheist are in a life raft...............
Well the atheist really is the odd man out in the boat. Get it. Odd man out... :mrgreen:

Oh touchingcloth.... y:O2

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:27 pm
by touchingcloth
BW - Where do you get the idea from that "if we all came from slime" then everyone should leap out of the boat? If you're going to apply a strictly evolutionary viewpoint to that analogy then why would you not aim to save as many lives as possible? Why does the fact that you have a powerful urge to save the life of someone you love - especially family members, doubly so your own children - mean that life has an intrinsic value any more than it means that you just want the best for the people you love (possibly even hinting an inate "desire" to see your own species and offspring prosper)?

You've still missed my main point, and I'm going to stick with it as it's an important one. I'll break it down a bit better this time (hopefully):
- If a society doesn't exist, we would not be able to discuss it
- If a society exists for us to talk about, it must have developed and continued to exist without breaking down or totally disintegrating
- If a society had no bias towards truth (i.e. if you could never be sure if someone in that society was lying or not) then it would quickly break down
- If a society permitted or encouraged widespread theft then it would quickly break down
- If a society had no constraints on killing, then it would quickly wipe itself out

Which all builds to my point that any society we can talk about has to have at least some core principles, or it wouldn't exist for us to talk about. Whether in a world with objective morality, or one without, there are at least some core morals that are necessarily the same between the two. To point to these moral absolutes and say that the fact that all cultures share a core set of morals is evidence of an objective morality doesn't work when those core morals are absolutely essential to the very existence of all cultures.

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:49 pm
by ageofknowledge
God's laws of nature work in a divinely ordained way to curb the expression of humanity's fallen nature. Theologians have long distinguished between two categories of God's grace: saving grace and common grace. Saving grace is God's removal (on behalf of Christ's payment) of the penalty for sin and the gradual transformation of the inner person, setting the individual free from sin's grip. God's common grace extends to all humanity.It does not remove the penalty for sin, but it does endow unbelievers with “innumerable blessings” from God. Common grace means that God bestows good gifts on all people, those who have received saving grace and those who have not, and restrains the full expression of evil.

An understanding of common grace helps reconcile the biblical description of unbelievers with ordinary experience. Consider, for example, the apostle Paul's description of unbelievers as he links together a series of Old Testament statements in Romans 3:10-18:

“There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” “Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.” “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Paul's harsh description seems to contradict everyday experience. Everyone can point to examples of non-Christian friends and family who regularly express kindness and other virtues. Christians certainly have not cornered the market on loving their families, caring for the sick, and risking their lives for others. In other words, the influence of sin does not appear to be as pervasive as one might expect, given the biblical description. The restraining power of God's common grace may help explain this observation.

Theologians note several means by which God administers common grace. For example, the Bible describes how God has constructed the natural world so that all humans—both the just and the unjust—may enjoy its fruits. God's provision of food and the cooperation of the weather are familiar biblical examples. Jesus said that God “makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:44-45). Similarly, Paul said, “In past generations [God] allowed the nations to walk in their own ways; yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good and gave you from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:16-17).

We also see evidence of God's common grace in the establishment of various structures within human society. At a foundational level, God has ordained the family unit. Even pagan parents typically know that they should nurture their children (Matt. 7:9-10) and raise them to become responsible adults. God has also ordained governments to help maintain order in society (Rom. 13).

Another means of God's common grace is the human conscience. The apostle Paul says that when unbelieving Gentiles, “who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them” (Rom. 2:14-15). God sheds His light on everyone's conscience, teaching unbelievers the differences between right and wrong. As God works through the conscience, Christians can work side-by-side with non-Christian allies to pass civil laws that are in external conformity with the law of God. Positive public pressure leads to a system of societal rewards and punishments that encourages external goodness and curbs evil conduct. So, although the unregenerate cannot perform good deeds that merit salvation, the Bible makes clear that unbelievers are capable of performing outwardly good deeds that align with God's moral law.

Based on his education as a physicist, Ross seeks to extend the historic theological understanding of common grace in his idea of the “physics of sin.” He suggests that God has built a guidance system of rewards and punishments into the natural order.

God's design of gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces, and thermodynamics yields this result: the more a person sins, the more work he must perform and the more pain he must experience…Because of their propensity to defy God, individuals need discipline. God's act of ejecting Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden to the world outside, where they had to plant their own gardens and deal, for example, with "thorns and thistles," helped set in motion the discipline they needed to understand that God's ways are best. The propensity to do things their own way (as opposed to following God's wisdom), consigned Adam and Eve and their descendents to experience much more work and much more pain…God designed the laws of physics to gently but firmly encourage humankind to depart from sin.

Although Ross limits his remarks to the laws of physics, entailed within this understanding are also those physics-obeying aspects of biology, chemistry, and the rest of nature. Based on this clarification, it would seem that what Ross is referring to as the “laws of physics” generally corresponds to the more commonly used term “laws of nature.” The consistency of the created order forms an important, God-given ally to the human conscience. As one cooperates with these natural laws, life tends to go better.

The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that whatever a man organizes, whatever he designs, and whatever information he accumulates becomes increasingly disordered. However, sin speeds up the breakdown. For example, if a man abuses his tools, they become less productive and wear out faster, leading him to experience more pain and more work when he uses them. If he abuses his animals, his employees, or a woman who might become his spouse, their response to the abuse causes him more work, less pleasure, and more pain.

This list of examples often has the effect of flooding the reader's (or listener's) mind with a list of counter examples. After all, will the laws of physics treat me differently if I steal a ring from the jewelry store rather than buy it? Both apparently result in the same outcome—the possession of a diamond ring—and in the former case without financial expense. How do the laws of nature encourage me to remain faithful to my spouse rather than commit adultery? Why do sweet fatty treats typically taste better than a tossed salad? If God wanted the laws of nature to discourage a person from eating Ding Dongs, it seems He should have made sugar taste like dirt.

Considering the long-term consequences of human decisions and actions brings the connection to the laws of nature into sharper focus. A life marked by thievery may result in legal penalty, but even if it does not, the stresses of evading detection take their toll, including relational costs. A pleasurable adulterous encounter has its costs and risks, also. It introduces guilt and deceit into the marriage relationship, damages trust, and erodes intimacy. Such an encounter may also result in an unwanted pregnancy and/or a sexually transmitted disease. A pattern of sexual immorality leads to a variety of relational, emotional, and physical costs. A habitual pattern of ingesting Ding Dongs will most likely result in obesity and a compromised immune system. Where obesity results, the law of gravity takes direct effect in degenerating the joints. In other words, although individual situations may seem immune to the physical laws God has built into the universe, natural consequences serve to curb the desirability of sin over the long term. Suddenly, honesty, marital fidelity, and watching one's weight in the short-term have long-term merit.

Not only do the laws of nature help to encourage good behavior, but they also help to restrain evil. Consider, for example, the fact that we live in a universe with only one dimension of time, which cannot be stopped or reversed. This is a great blessing. It prevents blood-thirsty dictators and abusive tyrants from wreaking havoc indefinitely. Their demise is inevitable, if not by the hand of the criminal justice system, then by death through natural causes. Their reigns of terror cannot endure forever.

God's use of the physical laws in restraining evil with the institution of human government, another component of common grace. The rule of law, even in an imperfect and inconsistent government, protects the innocent and punishes the guilty. One reason incidents of injustice remain is that people are less consistent in applying the laws of society than nature is in applying its laws. Nevertheless, few would argue that anarchy is beneficial to the quality of human life and the survival of civilization. Some, albeit imperfect, restraint on evil is better than none at all. With this in mind, we hear in Ross's ideas echoes of Berkhof:

Through the operation of common grace sin is restrained in the lives of individuals and in society. The element of corruption that entered the life of the human race is not permitted, for the present, to accomplish its disintegrating work…This restraint may be external or internal or both, but does not change the heart.

Natural laws play a role in the restraint of evil providing tangible, experiential support to the laws of morality written on the human conscience. They provide orderliness and stability to our understanding of the operation of everyday life. The laws of nature don't discriminate. They operate equitably and predictably at all times. One can know in advance that if she chooses action A, consequence B will follow. The pain of a burn provides support to the command, “Don't touch a hot stove.” This kind of predictable cause-and-effect relationship provides (and reinforces) accountability for one's actions.

According to Scripture, the universe as we know it—with its distinct physical attributes—will end. Revelation 21 says Christians can look forward to an eternity with God and the saints in the “new heavens and new earth.” Some day the restraint of sin will be total and complete. And to that day we look forward in faith and hope.

A Classical Perspective on the “Physics of Sin” by Hugh Ross Phd
http://www.reasons.org/classical-perspe ... n%E2%80%9D

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:43 pm
by Gman
touchingcloth wrote:Thanks for the clarification, all I could get my brain to land on was "general relativity" so I thought I must have had it wrong!

A couple of points:
Why would an evolved morality lead to an increased following of the golden rule? That hints at the fallacy that evolution is progress (as measured by some subjective standard), rather than change.
Because since we are evolving, our morality should be evolving with us. That is how it is pertained by evolutionist or humanists. This isn't just physical evolution, this is also the evolution of the mind. That's why I brought up the utopia thing. But if we look at the past, we find that that nothing has changed. Many think that if we all hold hands and wish peace that all the wars would go away. Not that it's a bad thought. It's just that it's not realistic. Why? Failure to acknowledge the condition of the human heart.
touchingcloth wrote:This leads to my second point, that even if an evolved morality did result in a perfect understanding of the golden rule, if you think that would result in an end to wars, murder, theft, etc. then you're missing at least one part of the puzzle - are you familiar with the prisoner's dilemma?
Again, I'm looking at it from the perspective of the GR from the humanists point of view. Because there is no perfect understanding of the golden rule.

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:23 am
by touchingcloth
Gman wrote:
touchingcloth wrote:Thanks for the clarification, all I could get my brain to land on was "general relativity" so I thought I must have had it wrong!

A couple of points:
Why would an evolved morality lead to an increased following of the golden rule? That hints at the fallacy that evolution is progress (as measured by some subjective standard), rather than change.
Because since we are evolving, our morality should be evolving with us. That is how it is pertained by evolutionist or humanists. This isn't just physical evolution, this is also the evolution of the mind. That's why I brought up the utopia thing. But if we look at the past, we find that that nothing has changed. Many think that if we all hold hands and wish peace that all the wars would go away. Not that it's a bad thought. It's just that it's not realistic. Why? Failure to acknowledge the condition of the human heart.
Again you're using "evolving" to mean "progressing". Morality has certainly changed over the centuries, whether for the better or not is entirely subjective. I don't know if it was a result of the enlightenment or globalisation, but I think we have a tendency to treat people who are different or in minority groups better these days than in the past.

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:16 pm
by jlay
Which all builds to my point that any society we can talk about has to have at least some core principles, or it wouldn't exist for us to talk about.
Core principles would appear to be an intrinsic value. Can the core values of right and wrong be implemented apart from consciousness? We KNOW we have an ability to recognize morality, right and wrong, meaning, etc. It is a conscious process. Yet, we are to believe that it occured through meaningless events. When you reduce it down to this 'essential,' it almost seems to me that God has put a road sign that points towards Him. Thanks!!
To point to these moral absolutes and say that the fact that all cultures share a core set of morals is evidence of an objective morality doesn't work when those core morals are absolutely essential to the very existence of all cultures.
To do otherwise is willful ignorance. Evolution does not have a consciousness. The very thing that you say allows these cultures to be, is rooted in being able to seek meaning in life.

You say they are essential. You can only say that because you can consciously examine life. Yet there are plenty of life forms that exist with no consciousness, or conscience. They are not able to discern value in life, or that something can be lovely or abhorrent. Evolutionary process is not consciously aware of what is and isn't essential. Why shouldn't life just flame out? Why does life strive to live? Saying that is is essential for humans to have core principles and in the same breath saying that this is somehow at conflict with OM, seems contradictory. The opposite would appear to be true.

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:04 pm
by Proinsias
Gman, thanks for the link but I disagree with pretty much everything in it.

B.W

I said I was not absolutely certain, not that I was absolutely certain about not being certain. I'm not using or appealing to absolutes, you are.

You say there are absolutes and since there are, there exist moral absolutes. This makes no sense to me at all. How does one flow from the other.

You ask how we tell right from wrong without absolutes. In the same way we tell big from small, by comparison.

You ask if sadistic rape of a baby is wrong, I think it is. A sadistic peadophile rapist may disagree. I can challenge it quite easily without appealing to an objective standard. Relatively speaking, comparing the rapist to everyone else, it's pretty bad - and thankfully most people agree.
Moral relativism serves only as an excuse for violating objective moral law seeking to dodge its existence in hopes of circumventing any responsibilities for the wrongs we committed in thought and deeds.
I'm sorry you see it that way.
How can the self only appears to exist and not indeed exist? Do you only exist when you look at yourself in a mirror?
Is the self what one can see in the mirror? Does the self cease to exist when the physical body, which can be seen in the mirror, ceases to be?
Forget trying obfuscating the issues with Daoism and Zen syllogisms. You do exist and can discover things. If that process of discovery was denied you — how could that really be absolutely Just?
Why should anything be absolutely just?
You and I are moral reasoning intelligent creatures who need an anchor for the soul: that anchor exists in the Moral Law Giver who knows the right way of doing something as opposed to the wrong way of doing something.
Anchor for the soul just sounds to me like clinging. We don't need an anchor for the soul, let go and enjoy the ride.

jlay:
Actually no. You can observe and test. The bible even says so. It has fulfilled prophecy. It also says that one can have these things made known to them. I've mentioned this before to you. Apparently you are not interested.

I would not claim to be seeking and open minded when in fact your own words condemn you. You say you KNOW morality, you claim you are just making it up as you go along.
I've never denied the Bible has fulfilled prophecy. I'm saying what I think about morality.
Are you saying that the position that raping a five year old child is not inherently worse than the position of abhoring such acts. Please answer this question.
Yes.
I do believe in purity of thought and not just action
You say this as if there is something to be revered in this position. If no position is inherently superior, then why is purity of thought morally superior to a differing view?
I really did try to say it as plainly as possible to avoid you again pursuing the route that I'm trying to make my position something to be revered. May I ask how I could have rewritten the above sentence to sound more neutral?

I'm not saying that purity of thought is morally superior to a differing view. If someone has all kinds of nasties going on in their head, ignores them and manages to act in a manner they see as moral, good on them. Perhaps as I'm a little weaker I opt for the purity of thought course, if I could think anything and still act in the manner I would like to I probably wouldn't bother wasting energy on trying to purify my thoughts. Horses for courses and all that.
If there is a biblical creator God, then is morality objective or subjective? Only asking, "if."
Yes, I would imagine so.
I think you are being naive here. A good judge would not let a murderer go free because he did good things in the past. Keep in mind we are not just talking about labels of good and bad. We are talking about criminal offense. Remember the saying, that justice is blind.
I'm not saying the judge would let that person go free, I'm saying they would take it into account and perhaps reduce the sentence. The analogy breaks down a little here as a judge does not have to pick one of two options, heaven or hell which are eternal - or even three if we count purgatory. Circumstance here influences length and severity of sentence, this would not appear to be the case in the divine court, you don't do a reduced amount of time in hell and get out on good behaviour.
Really? People judging morals and ethics is the same as people judging apples? That is ridiculous. So, the holocaust is the same as say a barrel of spoiled apples to you? If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you think seriously.
Well you know what they say about a rotten apple, it turns the whole barrel. A bit like Hitler and Germany when you think about it.

The point was that people do judge themselves by comparing themselves to others, as people judge apples by comparing apples. They don't judge apples by saying they are poor in comparison to God. People compare themselves to other people and make judgments based on this. That's why Hitler is one of the most talked about people here, almost everyone compares favourably to him so we can all unite in judging him.
Non sequitur.
Is there counterfeit money? Yes. Does that mean that all money has no true value. No. The reality of the counterfeit does not disprove the reality of the real. In fact, the opposite is true. No one would counterfiet money if it has no value. Why would one assume there is no creator. That is like looking at a painting and assuming it had no painter. Imagine looking at Mt. Rushmore and saying, 'I believe those human likenesses just happened by accident over time." You would admit that is absurd. Yet, you can look at a real human, with all the complexities, and the infinately delicately balanced world required for us to survive and assume, 'accident!'
It's more like being here and not being convinced something created and designed this. An admittance of ignorance, that it's a all bit of a mystery. Not a choice between accident and creator.

To follow the money analogy there are plenty of real currencies - just as there plenty of Gods, there is no one true currency. Counterfeit money does affect the value of real money, if there's enough of it it can replace it. Just as happens with Gods and religions. Enough Christians eventually leads to the God of Christianity being held up as the real God and the Gods of old being seen as fake and useless by the majority. If the majority of the world embraces a new currency tomorrow then the current real money with become fake and without value.

Also the value of money is very much relative.
You are fooling yourself if you think a Muslim will ever use reason, logic or philosophy to persuade you that Islam is true. Another fallacy you have that all religions are the same.
No, I'm not fooling myself.

I'm not saying all religions are the same. They have differences and they have similarities. I'm not judging them as better or worse than each other. I have my preferences, but these aren't objective judgments.

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:35 pm
by B. W.
touchingcloth wrote:BW - Where do you get the idea from that "if we all came from slime" then everyone should leap out of the boat? If you're going to apply a strictly evolutionary viewpoint to that analogy then why would you not aim to save as many lives as possible? Why does the fact that you have a powerful urge to save the life of someone you love - especially family members, doubly so your own children - mean that life has an intrinsic value any more than it means that you just want the best for the people you love (possibly even hinting an inate "desire" to see your own species and offspring prosper)?

You've still missed my main point, and I'm going to stick with it as it's an important one. I'll break it down a bit better this time (hopefully):
- If a society doesn't exist, we would not be able to discuss it
- If a society exists for us to talk about, it must have developed and continued to exist without breaking down or totally disintegrating
- If a society had no bias towards truth (i.e. if you could never be sure if someone in that society was lying or not) then it would quickly break down
- If a society permitted or encouraged widespread theft then it would quickly break down
- If a society had no constraints on killing, then it would quickly wipe itself out

Which all builds to my point that any society we can talk about has to have at least some core principles, or it wouldn't exist for us to talk about. Whether in a world with objective morality, or one without, there are at least some core morals that are necessarily the same between the two. To point to these moral absolutes and say that the fact that all cultures share a core set of morals is evidence of an objective morality doesn't work when those core morals are absolutely essential to the very existence of all cultures.
The mention of slime in my post was used as a rhetorical device used to capture in as brief as possible way the evolutionary belief system that reduces human creation to the random chance of arrival that we came from something — hence primordial ooze.

Next, regarding your position and answering:

Society began with a man and a woman and grew from there.

You are stating that Core Moral Values come through societal progression, environmental conditions, genetics… This does not mean nor prove that there is no Objective Moral Law outside oneself; rather it would prove that we were designed to discover what already exist.

How does one discover if their core moral values are right or wrong if there is no real right or no real wrong to measure ones core moral values?

In other words you appear to be confusing how one comes to know Moral Law with the Existence of Moral Law. Core Moral Values i.e. moral sentiments, change but absolute standards do not.

Whose core values are correct — Mother Teresa's or the Nazi's of WWII? Since you state that Core Moral Values come though societal evolution then there is no real right or real wrong that can distinguish the truth between the two regarding whose core values are right and who is wrong.

When one robs you — you know it is wrong. This crosses cultural boundaries and we discover that the Objective Morality of right and wrong exist. If the Nazi's were being rounded up and sent to the gas chambers — they would know their core moral values were wrong through the truth of the experience.

We discover that right and wrong does indeed exist outside of ourselves. You are confusing how we come to know Moral Law rather than its existence.
-
-
-

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:50 pm
by B. W.
Proinsias wrote:.B.W

I said I was not absolutely certain, not that I was absolutely certain about not being certain. I'm not using or appealing to absolutes, you are. ?
Are you certain I am?

How can you be certain that you are not absolutely certain without being absolutely sure you are not certain?
Proinsias wrote:You say there are absolutes and since there are, there exist moral absolutes. This makes no sense to me at all. How does one flow from the other.

You ask how we tell right from wrong without absolutes. In the same way we tell big from small, by comparison.

You ask if sadistic rape of a baby is wrong, I think it is. A sadistic peadophile rapist may disagree. I can challenge it quite easily without appealing to an objective standard. Relatively speaking, comparing the rapist to everyone else, it's pretty bad - and thankfully most people agree.
You proved my point — through discovery that an absolute value does indeed exist which proves something is wrong beyond all reasonable doubt and that is the Truth.
B. W. wrote: Moral relativism serves only as an excuse for violating objective moral law seeking to dodge its existence in hopes of circumventing any responsibilities for the wrongs we committed in thought and deeds.
Proinsias wrote: I'm sorry you see it that way.
Again you proved my point…

Why should not seeing it that way make it non-exist? Are you absolutely certain you are right? If so — you proved my point yet again…
B. W. wrote: How can the self only appears to exist and not indeed exist? Do you only exist when you look at yourself in a mirror?
Proinsias wrote: Is the self what one can see in the mirror? Does the self cease to exist when the physical body, which can be seen in the mirror, ceases to be?
Are you a self?
B. W. wrote: Forget trying obfuscating the issues with Daoism and Zen syllogisms. You do exist and can discover things. If that process of discovery was denied you — how could that really be absolutely Just?
Proinsias wrote: Why should anything be absolutely just?
Then --- Why should you be here?
B. W. wrote:You and I are moral reasoning intelligent creatures who need an anchor for the soul: that anchor exists in the Moral Law Giver who knows the right way of doing something as opposed to the wrong way of doing something.
Proinsias wrote: Anchor for the soul just sounds to me like clinging. We don't need an anchor for the soul, let go and enjoy the ride.
Yep, a drunk driver said that too before he hit the tree… His death was a certainty; therefore, absolutes do indeed exist.
jlay wrote:. You are fooling yourself if you think a Muslim will ever use reason, logic or philosophy to persuade you that Islam is true. Another fallacy you have that all religions are the same.
Proinsias wrote: No, I'm not fooling myself.
What makes you so certain you are not fooling yourself since if all is relative you can never be certain?
Proinsias wrote: I'm not saying all religions are the same. They have differences and they have similarities.
How can you make absolute value statement - I'm not saying all religions are the same — if moral relativity indeed exists? What objective criterion did you use to derive differences and similarities from since there exist no objective criterion possible? If objective criterion indeed exists then Moral Absolutes can exist as well.
Proinsias wrote: I'm not judging them as better or worse than each other. I have my preferences, but these aren't objective judgments.
What do you base your preferences on?

If not objective, then what worth does your relative opinion have?

Again — why are you here?
-
-
-

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:24 pm
by Proinsias
Are you certain I am?
No
How can you be certain that you are not absolutely certain without being absolutely sure you are not certain?
I can't
You proved my point — through discovery that an absolute value does indeed exist which proves something is wrong beyond all reasonable doubt and that is the Truth.
You've completely lost me. People agreeing that something is reasonably wrong doesn't prove anything more than that some people can agree on something being wrong.

Are you a self?
When you get right down to it, not sure.
Why should anything be absolutely just?
Then --- Why should you be here?
If things aren't absolutely just, why shouldn't I be here?
Yep, a drunk driver said that too before he hit the tree… His death was a certainty; therefore, absolutes do indeed exist.
Again I'm lost. You retroactively claim something was certain to happen that did happen and therefore absolutes exist?
What makes you so certain you are not fooling yourself since if all is relative you can never be certain?
You have a point, perhaps I was hallucinating or misremembering, who knows. As far as I recall I've spoken to more than one Muslim who has done what jlay claims is foolish to think a Muslim would ever do.
How can you make absolute value statement - I'm not saying all religions are the same — if moral relativity indeed exists? What objective criterion did you use to derive differences and similarities from since there exist no objective criterion possible? If objective criterion indeed exists then Moral Absolutes can exist as well.
I'm not making an absolute value statement. I'm sharing my opinion.
In the absence of objective criteria I compare and contrast the religions with each other.
What do you base your preferences on?
Generally on past experience and interactions with others.
If not objective, then what worth does your relative opinion have?
I'll let others decide. My opinion means a lot to some people and very little to others.
Again — why are you here?
Not quite sure.

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:21 am
by ageofknowledge
He's here because he has an innate need to connect with his Creator though he is in complete denial of it having been deceived by the god of this world.

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:28 am
by B. W.
B. W. wrote: How can you be certain that you are not absolutely certain without being absolutely sure you are not certain?
Proinsias wrote: I can't
That is an absolute statement — I can't — how can you be so certain about not being so certain?
B. W. wrote: You proved my point — through discovery that an absolute value does indeed exist which proves something is wrong beyond all reasonable doubt and that is the Truth.
Proinsias wrote: You've completely lost me. People agreeing that something is reasonably wrong doesn't prove anything more than that some people can agree on something being wrong.
Some things are learned and through the process of learning an absolute truth is exposed. In the case of morals: an objective universal moral principle (law) is discovered because it already exist from the Moral Law Giver himself — God.

Again — do you enjoy having things stolen from you? Lied too? Your good natured intentions manipulated and swindled out of something?

If you answer yes — you need to see a psychiatrist. If you say you are not certain because it depends on the circumstance - you are not being truthful with yourself at all.

No one enjoys being stolen from, lied too, manipulated / swindled. People everywhere can agree that this behavior is wrong. This exposes that the principles of Moral Law already exist because God exist as He does not like these same things done to him either.

With us, we know what should be done that avoids being stolen from, lied too, swindled and this 'what should be done' is common in all cultures but how it should be maintained is what differs (or is relative).

So is malicious untruthful slanderous gossip designed to bring another to ruin right or wrong?

Some things there is no middle ground. If you say, the answer would be relative to the circumstances — then are you not justifying evil behavior under the guise of promoting a greater good? Are you not swindling, then? Would you enjoy being the victim? It is either wrong or right.

Do unto others as you have them do unto you is a principle that helps one discover that there an objective standard for Moral Law that already exist because there is one called God who does not enjoy this being done to him either.

Question: Would you like your spouse only to be relatively faithful to you or true to you?
B. W. wrote:Are you a self?
Proinsias wrote: When you get right down to it, not sure.
Do you have personality? Character? A Nature? Are you cognizant? Capable of moral reasoning? Are you alive? If you have any of these then you are a self…
B. W. wrote: Why should anything be absolutely just?...Then --- Why should you be here?
Proinsias wrote: If things aren't absolutely just, why shouldn't I be here?
How could anything be absolutely just if it denies your existence, denies intellectual reasoning to make your own decisions, denies you the ability of liberty? Forget obfuscating the issue — fact — you do exist and can you discover things. If that was denied to you — how could that really be absolutely Just?

It is we that make the world unjust through the use of our own moral relativity used to justify our own moral mishaps and excuses, not God. From this, our own standards of justice fall short of God's. We would rather affix blame on God for causing death rather than admit it is we who made it happen.

An Absolute standard of Justice would not deny one the ability to discover things through the use reason. You have that ability or not — no one else — just you… Yes or No?

God is all Powerful — how could He remain so by denying you the justice to reason independently? Is he afraid of you and what you could do? How can God remain God if he fears you so much that he has to deny reason to you? Would not an objective standard instead state that God is more than capable of working through all things all powerfully which conforms to His absolute standard of justice rather than yours or mine?

If things are not absolutely just then the opposite exists as well — Absolute Justice. So why shouldn't you be here? Would it be in conformity to the principle of being absolutely just to deny liberty of reason to avoid the pain of discovery of what life is without God, the life we created in this world; so that you and I can return to him voluntarily? A God this Just, does not deserve anyone's continued denial.

If you pose that denying this discovery would be the best justice under some circumstances - then what you are saying is that you like Dictatorial Tyranny more than Liberty. Which of the two measures up to the absolute standards of justice?

You cry for liberty but only find dictatorial tyranny ruling life, the very life that we make for ourselves.

Why shouldn't we be here voluntarily returning to God so things can be made affixed to God's true right path?
B. W. wrote: Yep, a drunk driver said that too before he hit the tree… His death was a certainty; therefore, absolutes do indeed exist.
Proinsias wrote: Again I'm lost. You retroactively claim something was certain to happen that did happen and therefore absolutes exist?
Is Death certain? If so — absolutes do indeed exist.
B. W. wrote: What makes you so certain you are not fooling yourself since if all is relative you can never be certain?
Proinsias wrote: You have a point, perhaps I was hallucinating or misremembering, who knows. As far as I recall I've spoken to more than one Muslim who has done what jlay claims is foolish to think a Muslim would ever do.
Then what are you discovering through this? Is there a right and a wrong?
B. W. wrote: How can you make absolute value statement - I'm not saying all religions are the same — if moral relativity indeed exists? What objective criterion did you use to derive differences and similarities from since there exist no objective criterion possible? If objective criterion indeed exists then Moral Absolutes can exist as well.

…What do you base your preferences on?
Proinsias wrote: I'm not making an absolute value statement. I'm sharing my opinion. In the absence of objective criteria I compare and contrast the religions with each other.

…Generally on past experience and interactions with others
How can you discern similarities and differences if all is absolutely relative? If all is relative, your opinion has no merit, nor does anyone's, all is hopeless as there is no way to discern truth, yet you say you learned something from other Muslims — is there a right and wrong?
B. W. wrote: Again — why are you here?
Proinsias wrote: Not quite sure.
Would you like to be?
-
-
-