Evidence for God from Science

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.

Pro, perhaps analogies are lost on you. You have to understand that an analogy is intended to convey a truth through comparison. It doesn't mean all aspects of currency parrallel faith. You missed the basic premise in the analogy, and ran off some wild tangent of absurdity. You did the same thing with cheese. It is very frustrating and causes me to wonder if you are just that stubborn, confused, or you have some glitch in your mental capacity. You seem smart enough too me.

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.

So the majority rules, and conformity is morality? Man, that is a slippery slope. Ok, so if the majority thought the opposite of this would it change your position? I mean this is the ethic you are appealing to here. Keep in mind you already admitted that there is nothing inherently right or wrong about sadistic rape. Since you are basing your ethic on the standard of the majority, do you follow the majority in regards to all moral decisions? If not, are you wrong when you do not?


You lose me on the thankful part. What do you have to be thankful for? If sadistic rape isn't inherently wrong, then why is there such a strong position within you that abhors this act?

i want to know how to mail someone may someone mail me so i can talk to them and lead me in the right direction

Lyle wrote:i want to know how to mail someone may someone mail me so i can talk to them and lead me in the right direction

Hi Lyle,

Look to the right of the screen and you'll notice a PM icon and an Email icon. Run you mouse cursor over them and an info box should appear - select the PM button for the person you would like to contact on the thread frame that bears their name...

Hope this helps
-
-
-

jlay wrote:

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.

Pro, perhaps analogies are lost on you. You have to understand that an analogy is intended to convey a truth through comparison. It doesn't mean all aspects of currency parrallel faith. You missed the basic premise in the analogy, and ran off some wild tangent of absurdity. You did the same thing with cheese. It is very frustrating and causes me to wonder if you are just that stubborn, confused, or you have some glitch in your mental capacity. You seem smart enough too me.

jlay,

Daoism and Zen philosophical methods do run off into wild tangents of absurdity…

Hope this helps understanding pro's comments...


Pros - next --- Concerning the worthless value of ancient coins — please check out the prices of the least valued ancient coins on the market today:

http://www.ancientcoinstore.com/ancient ... rings.html

Sorry pros, your point holds no merit…ancient coins are worth more today than they did back then…

Pros - Are you in any relations to Timothy Geithner? your economics sound alot like his

If the majority of the world embraces a new currency tomorrow then the current real money with become fake and without value.

Meant with all good natured banter intended
-
-
-

B.W:

I've never heard of Timothy Geithner beyond a wiki search a few minutes ago.

I appreciate the mention of ancient coins but as with ancient Gods I feel they are of little value to most and of great value to few, as with most old and rare stuff including Gods.

I'm relatively certain, not absolutely. Does that help? For all it's worth I believe that you are also relatively certain about what you believe, not absolutely. In my opinion only something Godlike can be absolutely certain.

You say that everyone can agree that certain things are wrong which brings us back to the idea that wrong is something that people agree on. If everyone agrees that stealing or whatever is wrong, though argue about what stealing actually is, then stealing must be wrong. My subjective morality is based around the point that although we can agree on certain things like murder or stealing to be wrong we all have subjective ideas on what stealing or murder actually is. For some filesharing is stealing and for some meat or the death penalty is murder. Agreeing on a label being wrong means little if we can't agree on how to apply the label. Concepts are great but it's the application that matters and that's when things get subjective, when one applies concepts to situations.

If someone claims that cold blooded murder is fine then they are really inherently wrong just because a huge amount of people disagree? Can we talk about something which is inherently wrong which most people don't agree is wrong to get the agreement thing out of the way?

How do we distinguish what is inherently wrong from what what most people agree is wrong?

Question: Would you like your spouse only to be relatively faithful to you or true to you?

Yes. Relatively faithful will do me. If I'm a relatively bad husband I wouldn't expect her to be faithful to me. It's as much my job as it her's to ensure that doesn't happen.

I really don't see why things are, or should be, absolutely just. Surely we find that out after we complete our worldly business. If God takes sadistic rapists to paradise and dumps people we see as good in hell then what? It's faith and hope ,not knowledge that God is good and just.

If things are not absolutely just then the opposite exists as well — Absolute Justice.

Sounds like he same thing to me. Absolutely just or absolute justice, a different way of saying the same thing.

Is Death certain? If so — absolutes do indeed exist.

Death to me would be the absence of life, so no I don't think it is certain. If absolute death is certain then eternal life is bogus.

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.

I see it as a handy way to look at the world, akin t asking "what would Jesus do?". A useful question to ask, not a discovery of objective morality.

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?

I've got my own subjective ideas of right and wrong which change constantly, some you will agree with some you may not. Yes there is a right and wrong we create it and it changes all the time.

Not quite sure.

Would you like to be?

I don't believe we can be sure, we're only human. I think the journey is the important thing, not the destination. I think people who are absolutely sure trust too much in themselves. Allow for some ignorance and fallibility. If one picks a system of thought and is absolutely certain about it, I fear they are trusting too much in themselves. People can be wrong. I'm happy to admit ignorance but many others are absolutely certain about their path. My logic and reasoning may be faulty and everyone seems to have their own internal logic, it's just the explaining it that's the problem- other people just don't get it! If your logic was that good every logician would be Christian.

jlay:

Pro, perhaps analogies are lost on you. You have to understand that an analogy is intended to convey a truth through comparison. It doesn't mean all aspects of currency parrallel faith. You missed the basic premise in the analogy, and ran off some wild tangent of absurdity. You did the same thing with cheese. It is very frustrating and causes me to wonder if you are just that stubborn, confused, or you have some glitch in your mental capacity. You seem smart enough too me.

I understand the point you're making via your analogies. I just don't agree with the points and feel that the analogies can also adequately accommodate my point.

So the majority rules, and conformity is morality? Man, that is a slippery slope. Ok, so if the majority thought the opposite of this would it change your position? I mean this is the ethic you are appealing to here. Keep in mind you already admitted that there is nothing inherently right or wrong about sadistic rape. Since you are basing your ethic on the standard of the majority, do you follow the majority in regards to all moral decisions? If not, are you wrong when you do not?

It seems morality is not based on agreement but if I agree with you on something being wrong I've proven that morality is objective. You appear to be against the idea that morality is based on people agreeing on things and yet still come up with horrible things you are sure I will agree are wrong to prove morality is not simply about people agreeing about things.

You lose me on the thankful part. What do you have to be thankful for? If sadistic rape isn't inherently wrong, then why is there such a strong position within you that abhors this act?

I think it's terrible and I'm thankful most people agree. I don't care if it's inherently wrong I'm just thankful that most people take as strong a position on it as I do. If sadistic rape is inherently right I'm still thankful most people view it as wrong.

Pro, I guess I am quite perplexed that you really don't seem to understand what we are saying even after all this time.

I'm relatively certain, not absolutely. Does that help? For all it's worth I believe that you are also relatively certain about what you believe, not absolutely. In my opinion only something Godlike can be absolutely certain.

I'm certain that I am going to die some day. I am not relatively certain, but absolutely certain.

It seems morality is not based on agreement but if I agree with you on something being wrong I've proven that morality is objective. You appear to be against the idea that morality is based on people agreeing on things and yet still come up with horrible things you are sure I will agree are wrong to prove morality is not simply about people agreeing about things.

Of course morality can be based on people agreeing. Is that not subjective morality defined? No one here advocating OM is saying that SM doesn't exist. Those defending SM, like yourself, are saying OM does not exist.
What we are trying to demonstrate is that there is a reason beyond your selfish, uncertain, constantly changing worldview that tells you sadistic rape is wrong. It isn't wrong because people agree it is wrong. It is wrong in and of itself. I suspect you know that in your heart. I suspect this is exactly why you have a problem answering the question.

Ok, so if the majority thought the opposite of this would it change your position? I mean this is the ethic you are appealing to here. Keep in mind you already admitted that there is nothing inherently right or wrong about sadistic rape. Since you are basing your ethic on the standard of the majority, do you follow the majority in regards to all moral decisions? If not, are you wrong when you do not?

If the majority of people approved of sadistic rape would you be wrong to disapprove? Yes or no.

Yes there are subjective agreements and disagreements on many things regarding morality. That doesn't negate anything about objective morality. Just like there are many subjective ideas on how to discipline a child. But at the root is the objective truth that some form of discipline is necessary.

I think it's terrible and I'm thankful most people agree.

You think it is terrible. But you will admit then that it is not really terrible, correct? If there is nothing inherently good or bad about sadistic rape, then it isn't really terrible now is it. BTW, saying it is 'terrible in my opinion,' does not answer this question. Why should your opinion hold any weight over one who approves of sadistic rape. By your own confession it does not.
Horrible, terrible, evil, etc. These are all words that convey an inherent meaning. To be fully consistent in your world view, you would be better off to stop using these words and stick with 'it conflicts with my world view.'

Yes there is a right and wrong we create it and it changes all the time.

That quote proves it.

I think the journey is the important thing, not the destination.

Eternity is a long time to be wrong.

If your logic was that good every logician would be Christian.

That don't hold water. Everyone is biased. You are biased against a Christian worldview. I am biased against an Atheistic world view.

I don't believe we can be sure, we're only human.

Are you sure we can't be sure? That is a self-defeating statement.

People can be wrong.

.

I fear they are trusting too much in themselves.

Have you considered your own position? Because you seem so certain, for someone who says we can't be certain. Try that with gravity. There are plenty who will tell you we can't be certain of gravity. Embrace your logic, and go step off a 10 story building and see how that works out for you. You wouldn't risk your life would you? Yet you are risking eternity by being so certain of what you say everyone can't be sure of.

About death being an absolute certainty for you. As I said earlier death to me would be an absence of life and what happens when life leaves a physical body is not something I can be absolutely, or even relatively, certain about.

Of course morality can be based on people agreeing. Is that not subjective morality defined? No one here advocating OM is saying that SM doesn't exist. Those defending SM, like yourself, are saying OM does not exist.
What we are trying to demonstrate is that there is a reason beyond your selfish, uncertain, constantly changing worldview that tells you sadistic rape is wrong. It isn't wrong because people agree it is wrong. It is wrong in and of itself. I suspect you know that in your heart. I suspect this is exactly why you have a problem answering the question

I don't think I've had a problem answering the question, I've answered it repeatedly. I don't believe it is inherently wrong, or wrong in and of itself.

If the majority of people approved of sadistic rape would you be wrong to disapprove? Yes or no.

The majority of people would say I was wrong to disapprove and I, along with a minority, would feel I would be right to disapprove.

Horrible, terrible, evil, etc. These are all words that convey an inherent meaning. To be fully consistent in your world view, you would be better off to stop using these words and stick with 'it conflicts with my world view.'

I agree that evil tends to imply inherent meaning, hence I tend to avoid using the word. Horrible and terrible I don't think do imply inherent meaning. I think certain music is terrible and certain foodstuffs are horrible, I think certain people are horrible and certain crimes are terrible - I don't think this implies inherent meaning so I don't shy away from using these words. Although I don't use them that often. I would use them to indicate the strength of my feeling, not as an indicator of what God thinks.

I don't believe we can be sure, we're only human.

Are you sure we can't be sure? That is a self-defeating statement.

That's why I said what I said and not what you said, to prevent it from becoming self defeating.

Have you considered your own position? Because you seem so certain, for someone who says we can't be certain. Try that with gravity. There are plenty who will tell you we can't be certain of gravity. Embrace your logic, and go step off a 10 story building and see how that works out for you. You wouldn't risk your life would you? Yet you are risking eternity by being so certain of what you say everyone can't be sure of.

Are you not also risking eternity? People can be wrong as you agreed earlier, we are all gambling to some degree.

Proinsias wrote:About death being an absolute certainty for you. As I said earlier death to me would be an absence of life and what happens when life leaves a physical body is not something I can be absolutely, or even relatively, certain about.

You can be relatively certain about it if someone went through exactly that experience and accurately reported back to you about it. You can be relatively certain about a lot of things you've never experienced or seen if someone who has experienced or seen it accurately reports back what they experienced or seen. I look at far away stars on a star map that I have never seen but believe they exist based on another's confirmed report of them existing after they saw them. Let's be honest, you choose not to believe some things and choose to believe others based on your own bias... your own worldview.

Pro, let's not make things complicated for the sake of being complicated. we are talking about physical death here. Period. Your physical body will die. Period, end of story. It will rot or be burned up. That is an absolute certainty. We have billions of case studies to confirm this as fact.

The majority of people would say I was wrong to disapprove and I, along with a minority, would feel I would be right to disapprove.

I didn't ask you how you would feel. Would you be wrong?
You are saying that nothing is inherently wrong? And that right and wrong are established in cultures by agreement. So, if your moral choice disagrees with the majority, are you wrong?

I agree that evil tends to imply inherent meaning, hence I tend to avoid using the word. Horrible and terrible I don't think do imply inherent meaning. I think certain music is terrible and certain foodstuffs are horrible, I think certain people are horrible and certain crimes are terrible - I don't think this implies inherent meaning so I don't shy away from using these words. Although I don't use them that often. I would use them to indicate the strength of my feeling, not as an indicator of what God thinks.

fair enough, I should have been more specific. In regards to morals, these words can and do infer inherent meaning. Just like good and bad can and do. But we can use these words in other areas where there is no inherent meaning connected. Music is actually a good analogy. We might describe our taste with these words. But it doesn't speak to the inherent quality. For example someone hitting a sour note contrasted with your distaste for a certain singer. I know Celine Dion is hitting the notes and subscribing to the inherent quality of music theory. But I abhor her music personnaly. And so again you can distinquish inherent quality versus subjective taste. This only goes to further prove my point.

Now if you really want to embrace that the way you view sadistic rape is no different than how you view a music style that offends you, then you certainly have the right. But i doubt that is what your conscience embraces. i suspect your immediate response would be, "no, I think sadistic rape is much worse." Based on what? If the source is your opinion, then your opinion of music or sadistic rape is still your opinion. The subjective standard is still you. The reason a statement like that eats at your conscience is because of the objective truth behind it. Listen to your conscience.

Are you not also risking eternity? People can be wrong as you agreed earlier, we are all gambling to some degree.

That is a good question. Let me put it to you this way. What if you could confirm that what you had trusted in was in fact the truth. Now, it doesn't mean you have every answer. It doesn't mean you still don't have to have hope and faith. But you did have a confirming revelation that what you did believe was in fact true.

ageofknowledge wrote:Let's be honest, you choose not to believe some things and choose to believe others based on your own bias... your own worldview.

Agreed.

jlay,

Pro, let's not make things complicated for the sake of being complicated. we are talking about physical death here. Period. Your physical body will die. Period, end of story. It will rot or be burned up. That is an absolute certainty. We have billions of case studies to confirm this as fact.

I disagree. It is a relative certainty, based upon billions and billions of confirmations. I admit it is hugely likely and one of the safest bets you could ever make, even safer than taxes, but it still comes down to a bet. We don't know with absolute certainty what the future will bring, that would require being God. We can be really, really, really sure about something happening in the future as it has always happened in the past, but not absolutely certain.

To me it seems reasonable to presume that my physical body will die and rot or be burned. I'll leave the absolute certainty of the future to those who are omniscient, I'm content in my assumption and hopefully won't be too miffed if it turns out I'm wrong.

I didn't ask you how you would feel. Would you be wrong?
You are saying that nothing is inherently wrong? And that right and wrong are established in cultures by agreement. So, if your moral choice disagrees with the majority, are you wrong?

But in the absence of inherent wrongness all I'm left with is how I feel and how other people feel. So when you ask me if it is wrong all I can tell you is that, in this rape scenario you have constructed, I think it is wrong along with a minority of people and a majority of people think it right.

If my moral choice disagrees with that of the majority then the majority disagree with my moral choice, no more no less. I think I'm right and a majority of my society think I'm wrong.

It seems you wish an objective answer. I can't give you one.

fair enough, I should have been more specific. In regards to morals, these words can and do infer inherent meaning. Just like good and bad can and do. But we can use these words in other areas where there is no inherent meaning connected. Music is actually a good analogy. We might describe our taste with these words. But it doesn't speak to the inherent quality. For example someone hitting a sour note contrasted with your distaste for a certain singer. I know Celine Dion is hitting the notes and subscribing to the inherent quality of music theory. But I abhor her music personnaly. And so again you can distinquish inherent quality versus subjective taste. This only goes to further prove my point.

I think we may have some common ground over Celine Dion. I bought my mum her CD years ago as a birthday present and she loved it so much it never left the cd player for over a year, I'm glad she liked it so much but it was a tough year for all the family

I would argue that the inherent quality of music theory that Celine Dion is apparently ascribing to is little more than general agreement, different cultures have different ideas about what a sour note is, as do different people, after listening to a lot of Captain Beefheart I don't think a sour note is bad thing. A good singer is a singer whose singing you like. Inherent quality via avoiding sour notes means little to me. If someone goes against what is expected musically at the time or if someone perfectly adheres to what is expected at the time means little to me. One can follow all the rules and be rubbish just as one can break the rules and be great, music is full of people breaking the rules and being great, I don't think Celine is one of them.

Now if you really want to embrace that the way you view sadistic rape is no different than how you view a music style that offends you, then you certainly have the right. But i doubt that is what your conscience embraces. i suspect your immediate response would be, "no, I think sadistic rape is much worse." Based on what? If the source is your opinion, then your opinion of music or sadistic rape is still your opinion. The subjective standard is still you. The reason a statement like that eats at your conscience is because of the objective truth behind it. Listen to your conscience.

I do think sadistic rape is much worse. Based on my own feelings. I would much rather listen to Celine Dion than be raped, I would listen to Celine Dion if I thought it would prevent a rape. My conscious is not fighting me on this one, it seems perfectly happy that I view rape as much worse than a Celine Dion album.

Pros I asked this to another:

Is there an absolute inevitability of Death for us all?

It does not matter what you believe about death — is it an absolute inevitable certaincy

There are absolutes…
-
-
-

Proinsias wrote: B.W:I appreciate the mention of ancient coins but as with ancient Gods I feel they are of little value to most and of great value to few, as with most old and rare stuff including Gods.

It does not matter if a person does not care or cares about the coins —what is relative to them does not decrease the value worth of ancient coins. They have value. To have value then only proves that value exists. Coins do not matter — value does.

Again, what one values or not value does not disprove that that a standard of absolute value exist. How do you know what Value is, if Value does not already exist?

Proinsias wrote: I'm relatively certain, not absolutely. Does that help? For all it's worth I believe that you are also relatively certain about what you believe, not absolutely. In my opinion only something Godlike can be absolutely certain.

Something Godlike can be absolutely certain?? But do you believe in God? How do you know what is Godlike if Godlike is merely relative to opinion, yet you clearly state, 'something Godlike can be absolutely certain'

If something Godlike can be absolutely certain, then how about God? If that one is really God then He has absolute standards and values. Our own relativity therefore falls short of such glory as we learn through discovery…

Proinsias wrote: You say that everyone can agree that certain things are wrong which brings us back to the idea that wrong is something that people agree on. If everyone agrees that stealing or whatever is wrong, though argue about what stealing actually is, then stealing must be wrong. My subjective morality is based around the point that although we can agree on certain things like murder or stealing to be wrong we all have subjective ideas on what stealing or murder actually is. For some file sharing is stealing and for some meat or the death penalty is murder. Agreeing on a label being wrong means little if we can't agree on how to apply the label. Concepts are great but it's the application that matters and that's when things get subjective, when one applies concepts to situations.

If someone claims that cold blooded murder is fine then they are really inherently wrong just because a huge amount of people disagree? Can we talk about something which is inherently wrong which most people don't agree is wrong to get the agreement thing out of the way?

How do we distinguish what is inherently wrong from what what most people agree is wrong?

Knowing murder, stealing, or child rape is wrong does not come because people agree in consensus. People discover that there is an absolute measurable standard which identifies that Wrong exist as well as that an absolute measurable standard also identifies that Right exist.

How do we distinguish what is inherently wrong from what what most people agree is wrong? When such crime as stealing, rape, swindling, etc, is done onto you, you discover that such thing called Wrong Exists.

How do you build swing set? There is a right way and a wrong way to build it. Our own relativity therefore falls short of such standards because it cannot see that there is a right way or a wrong way...

Question: Would you like your spouse only to be relatively faithful to you or true to you?

Proinsias wrote: Yes. Relatively faithful will do me. If I'm a relatively bad husband I wouldn't expect her to be faithful to me. It's as much my job as it her's to ensure that doesn't happen.

Surely we find that out after we complete our worldly business. If God takes sadistic rapists to paradise and dumps people we see as good in hell then what? It's faith and hope, not knowledge that God is good and just.

You said, “It's as much my job as it her's to ensure that doesn't happen.” Then you said, “I really don't see why things are, or should be, absolutely just..”

Sounds like you have just contradicted yourself. You and your spouse do desire to be absolutely faithful to each other.

Next, you stated: “If God takes sadistic rapists to paradise and dumps people we see as good in hell then what? It's faith and hope, not knowledge that God is good and just.”

What do you base your idea of fairness on if fairness is only relative? How could you say this is wrong for God to do? Again: What do you base your idea of fairness on if fairness is only relative?

Is Death certain? If so — absolutes do indeed exist.

Proinsias wrote: Death to me would be the absence of life, so no I don't think it is certain. If absolute death is certain then eternal life is bogus.

Will your body inevitably die Proinsais?

What do you base fairness on?

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…

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?

Proinsias wrote: I see it as a handy way to look at the world, akin t asking "what would Jesus do?". A useful question to ask, not a discovery of objective morality…

I've got my own subjective ideas of right and wrong which change constantly, some you will agree with some you may not. Yes there is a right and wrong we create it and it changes all the time.

Just because we can create right and wrong does not disprove that absolutes do not exist. It would mean that we are in the process of discovering them and during discovery we uncover that our own relativity falls short of such standards...

Proinsias wrote:Not quite sure.

Would you like to be?

Proinsias wrote: I don't believe we can be sure, we're only human. I think the journey is the important thing, not the destination. I think people who are absolutely sure trust too much in themselves. Allow for some ignorance and fallibility. If one picks a system of thought and is absolutely certain about it, I fear they are trusting too much in themselves. People can be wrong. I'm happy to admit ignorance but many others are absolutely certain about their path. My logic and reasoning may be faulty and everyone seems to have their own internal logic, it's just the explaining it that's the problem- other people just don't get it! If your logic was that good every logician would be Christian.

Yet, you are absolutely sure of subjective relativity so then would this not mean, in your own words, “I think people who are absolutely sure trust too much in themselves..” would apply to you as well?

Our own relativity falls short of such standards of what makes right - right and wrong - wrong…

Since so, people logically persuade themselves to remain ignorant in hopes of escaping inevitably.

Pros, Are you certain of eternity without doubt?
-
-
-

It seems you wish an objective answer. I can't give you one.

A straight answer. And I agree you can't/won't give one.

It is a relative certainty, based upon billions and billions of confirmations. I admit it is hugely likely and one of the safest bets you could ever make, even safer than taxes, but it still comes down to a bet. We don't know with absolute certainty what the future will bring, that would require being God. We can be really, really, really sure about something happening in the future as it has always happened in the past, but not absolutely certain.

You are making more absolute statements. You are saying we can be absolutely sure that we can not be absolutely sure. Stop with the childish games already. Apparently it is OK for you to be absolutely sure, but not us.
And, you CAN be absolutely sure without being God. Not about everything, but about many things. You can be absolutely sure that when you have two apples and add two more, you will have four apples. To suggest otherwise would only demonstrate that you are being stubborn and not truly interested in approaching these matters with any sincerity. You will absolutely die. Period. It is not a relative thing. It is a sure thing.

Question: Would you like your spouse only to be relatively faithful to you or true to you?

Proinsias wrote: Yes. Relatively faithful will do me. If I'm a relatively bad husband I wouldn't expect her to be faithful to me. It's as much my job as it her's to ensure that doesn't happen

Let's apply what you said earlier with a little reshaping of a few words in your quote...

"Yes. Relatively faithful will do me - If I'm a relatively bad I wouldn't expect God to be faithful to me. It's as much my job as it God's to ensure that doesn't happen"

God did send his Son to ensure that you can remain Faithful but if you reject this in exchange for relativism (then your own words): I wouldn't expect God to be faithful to me.

You said, “I really don't see why things are, or should be, absolutely just…”

Soooo, If you do not want the Lord — why would he want you?

Next, you stated:

“If God takes sadistic rapists to paradise and dumps people we see as good in hell then what? It's faith and hope, not knowledge that God is good and just.”

How can people be good if good is relative?

What basis do you use to judge human goodness on since according to your view such absolute standard for goodness can't exist? Being relativistic can't get you into paradise...

Another Question: Why would God want to live next door to someone who spends his/ her time ignoring God, denying him, using relativism to deny the truth to skrit around judgment, etc?

Again: God did send his Son to ensure that you can remain Faithful but if you reject this in exchange for relativism (then in your own words): I wouldn't expect God to be faithful to me.

You said, “I really don't see why things are, or should be, absolutely just…”

You want God to be — yes, relativistic towards you — you go your way and He goes his….

Then say, “I really don't see why things are, or should be, absolutely just…”

Really ????
-
-
-

You are making more absolute statements. You are saying we can be absolutely sure that we can not be absolutely sure. Stop with the childish games already. Apparently it is OK for you to be absolutely sure, but not us.

It is ok for you to be absolutely sure. I'm not trying to convert you to my point of view or tell you that you are wrong. I'm trying to explain why I think morality is subjective. I'm not saying that you shouldn't believe in OM. I do find it odd that someone who believes that for God nothing is impossible also believes that they can be absolutely certain about things in the future. If God wishes that tomorrow you take two apples and then take another two apples and end up with five apples, why not? Or if God decides someone shouldn't die a physical death at some point in the future, why not?

On a very basic level it is the assumption that things will continue to be as they always have been. To know with absolute certainty that the nature of reality as one perceives it today will continue tomorrow. I suppose I'm not saying that you can't be absolutely sure, I just don't get why one would be absolutely sure. Pretty certain I can understand but absolutely I can't.

By mentioning the billions of case studies you are minimizing statistical uncertainty, not affirming absolutes.

B.W:

Pros I asked this to another:

Is there an absolute inevitability of Death for us all?

It does not matter what you believe about death — is it an absolute inevitable certaincy

There are absolutes…

I don't think I can say much more than what I said to jlay above:

I disagree. It is a relative certainty, based upon billions and billions of confirmations. I admit it is hugely likely and one of the safest bets you could ever make, even safer than taxes, but it still comes down to a bet. We don't know with absolute certainty what the future will bring, that would require being God. We can be really, really, really sure about something happening in the future as it has always happened in the past, but not absolutely certain.
To me it seems reasonable to presume that my physical body will die and rot or be burned. I'll leave the absolute certainty of the future to those who are omniscient, I'm content in my assumption and hopefully won't be too miffed if it turns out I'm wrong.

With the addition as above that I suppose one can be absolutely certain, I just don't see why.

It does not matter if a person does not care or cares about the coins —what is relative to them does not decrease the value worth of ancient coins. They have value. To have value then only proves that value exists. Coins do not matter — value does.

They only have the value that people attach to them. If no one values them, no one would buy them and they would lose their value. I don't see much value in ancient coins, if I found one I would sell it to someone who did see value in it and would buy something that I valued, like a nice antique yixing teapot. If I'm buying the teapot from China and selling the coin to a European then the relative value of money also comes into play. The inherent value of the pound is meaningless to me, its relative value to other currencies is not.

Again, what one values or not value does not disprove that that a standard of absolute value exist. How do you know what Value is, if Value does not already exist?

As with morals I believe values are subjective and relative.
I get the feeling that most here won't put much value on Zen koans but this one seems relevant.

Something Godlike can be absolutely certain?? But do you believe in God? How do you know what is Godlike if Godlike is merely relative to opinion, yet you clearly state, 'something Godlike can be absolutely certain'

It's not so much a matter of believing or not believing in God for me but more a matter of trying to understand what God is - or at least trying to get an understanding of the many different ideas of god(s) that humanity has come up with.

If something Godlike can be absolutely certain, then how about God? If that one is really God then He has absolute standards and values. Our own relativity therefore falls short of such glory as we learn through discovery…

Well yes. If a God exists with absolute standards and values then our own relativity will fall short of this. It's a big if for me.

How do we distinguish what is inherently wrong from what what most people agree is wrong? When such crime as stealing, rape, swindling, etc, is done onto you, you discover that such thing called Wrong Exists.

I've not been raped but I've been mugged, robbed, attacked, swindled, lied to, beaten etc. I never discovered that something called WRONG exists.

How do you build swing set? There is a right way and a wrong way to build it. Our own relativity therefore falls short of such standards because it cannot see that there is a right way or a wrong way...

There are many ways to build a swing. We made one when I was young by tying a rope to a treebranch so we could swing over a road and touch the tops of buses with our feet. The kids thought is was great, the adults and the local council though it was wrong. Opinions, nothing more.

Sounds like you have just contradicted yourself. You and your spouse do desire to be absolutely faithful to each other.

I don't think I have. I said I would like us to be realitvely faithful to each other.

Next, you stated: “If God takes sadistic rapists to paradise and dumps people we see as good in hell then what? It's faith and hope, not knowledge that God is good and just.”

What do you base your idea of fairness on if fairness is only relative? How could you say this is wrong for God to do? Again: What do you base your idea of fairness on if fairness is only relative?

I determine fairness relatively, it's based on far from cleancut experiences I've had. I'm not saying that God is inherently wrong if God rewards rapists by sending them to heaven. It seems from your view that what is good is determined by God. If God sends rapists and murderers to heaven and sends 'good' Christians to hell then you're wrong in saying that rape and murder is inherently wrong. If God sends you to hell for not raping and murdering enough you'd have to admit you were wrong as God is the source of right and wrong.

Just because we can create right and wrong does not disprove that absolutes do not exist. It would mean that we are in the process of discovering them and during discovery we uncover that our own relativity falls short of such standards...

I agree it doesn't prove that absolutes don't exist but I don't think it follows that we are necessarily discovering them.

Yet, you are absolutely sure of subjective relativity so then would this not mean, in your own words, “I think people who are absolutely sure trust too much in themselves..” would apply to you as well?

I'm not absolutely sure. It's what I think at the moment. Of course I apply it to myself, I don't absolutely trust myself. If you're absolutely sure of certain convictions you have good for you, I'm an advocate of admission of ignorance.

Pros, Are you certain of eternity without doubt?

Nope, I struggle to even conceive of eternity.