An Infinite Past?

[JimL]

Jim, I'm not going down this rabbit trail with you since it has nothing to do with my point and only confuses the issue. You have been around enough to know the general New Testament ethical teachings - figure it out.

No, it doesn't confuse the issue, it only shows that your argument is confused. You are not even arguing for the existence of an objective standard of morals, you are arguing for the existence of a God in whom morality is objectively arbitrary, not to mention unknown to humanity. "Slavery was at one time moral, but is not moral now, stoning to death homosexuals was at one time moral, but is not moral now, burning so called witches at the stake, was at one time moral, but is not moral now. Genocide was at one time moral, but is not moral now." These are arbitrary cultural morals which the bible claims to be devine moral laws. You have no objective standard to argue for, your only argument is for the existence of a morally arbitrary God which again you have no evidence for.

Jim, I already answered this, our moral choices are only significant if we are significant.

Merely asserting your position does not a refutation of my argument make. If subjective morals are significant to the lives of human beings, if subjective morals fulfill a a social purpose such as peaceful co-existence, then what counter argument do you have to justify your assertion that subjective morals are meaningless.

And that is the point Jim, the ants actual survival is neither meaningful or significant, just like our actual survival is neither meaningful or significant - no matter our subjective wants. So our moral choices have no significance because we have no significance.

The delusion you are espousing is the belief that the only thing that has inherent objective significance in nature is you. Life is subjectively significant to all things that live, including humans and ants, but humans because they are able, put themselves upon a pedestle thinking themselves to have objective significance above all life. Isn't that special?

[seer]

No, it doesn't confuse the issue, it only shows that your argument is confused. You are not even arguing for the existence of an objective standard of morals, you are arguing for the existence of a God in whom morality is objectively arbitrary, not to mention unknown to humanity. "Slavery was at one time moral, but is not moral now, stoning to death homosexuals was at one time moral, but is not moral now, burning so called witches at the stake, was at one time moral, but is not moral now. Genocide was at one time moral, but is not moral now." These are arbitrary cultural morals which the bible claims to be devine moral laws. You have no objective standard to argue for, your only argument is for the existence of a morally arbitrary God which again you have no evidence for.

Again Jim, it does matter to the argument. You are just being emotional again. And BTW you need to learn the difference between objective and absolute. You have not heard me use the word absolute.

Merely asserting your position does not a refutation of my argument make. If subjective morals are significant to the lives of human beings, if subjective morals fulfill a a social purpose such as peaceful co-existence, then what counter argument do you have to justify your assertion that subjective morals are meaningless.

You are not making sense. If killing the politically dissenting minority in a country furthered peaceful co-existence for the whole then that is good - correct? This is the point I made time and time again - two completely opposite behaviors are equally valid. A and not A are both true.

The delusion you are espousing is the belief that the only thing that has inherent objective significance in nature is you. Life is subjectively significant to all things that live, including humans and ants, but humans because they are able, put themselves upon a pedestle thinking themselves to have objective significance above all life. Isn't that special?

Once again - the Jewish man thinks his life is significance, the Nazi doesn't - who is actually correct James?

[JimL]

Again Jim, it does matter to the argument. You are just being emotional again. And BTW you need to learn the difference between objective and absolute. You have not heard me use the word absolute.

Well, thats a bit condescending, but no matter. Okay, so your argument is that morals, though arbitrary, are ultimately objective, existing apart from human reason. So, being that the objective morals are not absolute, how then do humans determine right from wrong if they have no access to the changing objective moral standard?

You are not making sense. If killing the politically dissenting minority in a country furthered peaceful co-existence for the whole then that is good - correct? This is the point I made time and time again - two completely opposite behaviors are equally valid. A and not A are both true.

That would not be peaceful co-existence for the whole of society now would it? That would be tyrranny and constant war. And it is not about dissent, it is about obedience to the generally agreed upon moral structure of the society.

Once again - the Jewish man thinks his life is significance, the Nazi doesn't - who is actually correct James?

Neither! Each mans life, and the lives of those they care for, is significant to themselves. Bin Ladens life was significant to him, was it to you? Is the ants life significant to you? Again, life is significant to the living, but like the dinosaurs, nature doesn't care if you survive whether you are a dinosaur, an ant or a human being. We would like to be special of course, which is why we create God, but nature tells a different story.

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, it is not about understanding God's nature totally, you said we can not understand His Divine Law (His ultimate absolute Divine Law.) If that is the case then you can never know what His ultimate view on slavery is.

True, but no fallible human knows what God's absolute knowledge of anything, Can you propose in any way a fallible human could have this knowledge.

So there is an objective moral standard that we are progressing towards.

We are progressing toward a higher 'Divine Law' which is a higher standard then any morality standard. I still have no idea what 'objective morality' is unless you are equating it to the absolute Divine nature of God.

If the 'objective morality' is not a set of moral standards, what is it? How can we know what this 'objective morality' is?

[Tassman]

Jim, I'm not going down this rabbit trail with you since it has nothing to do with my point and only confuses the issue. You have been around enough to know the general New Testament ethical teachings - figure it out.

To Jim:

If the New Testament ethical teachings have to be ‘figured out’ they aren't objective are they, they're subject to interpretation. Throughout Christian history New Testament ethical teachings have been interpreted according to the mores of the day, e.g. slavery.

Jim, I already answered this, our moral choices are only significant if we are significant.

Our moral choices are a significant survival mechanism in and of themselves.

And that is the point Jim, the ants actual survival is neither meaningful or significant, just like our actual survival is neither meaningful or significant - no matter our subjective wants. So our moral choices have no significance because we have no significance.

All living creatures are genetically predisposed to survive, including humans. It’s instinctive. To attribute greater significance than this to mere survival is just wishful thinking.

[seer]

Well, thats a bit condescending, but no matter. Okay, so your argument is that morals, though arbitrary, are ultimately objective, existing apart from human reason. So, being that the objective morals are not absolute, how then do humans determine right from wrong if they have no access to the changing objective moral standard?

Again Jim, I'm not arguing about if or how we come to know these objective moral truths but what logically follows if they do not exist. Certainly you must understand this distinction by now.

That would not be peaceful co-existence for the whole of society now would it? That would be tyrranny and constant war. And it is not about dissent, it is about obedience to the generally agreed upon moral structure of the society.

First, killing political dissidents does not lead to constant war. It didn't in China, the Soviet Union or in present day North Korea. Second Jim, it is not about anything - it is only about who has the power to enforce their will on others. But back to the point: In your world killing political dissidents and not killing political dissidents are equally correct actions. Both A and not A are valid.

Neither! Each mans life, and the lives of those they care for, is significant to themselves. Bin Ladens life was significant to him, was it to you? Is the ants life significant to you? Again, life is significant to the living, but like the dinosaurs, nature doesn't care if you survive whether you are a dinosaur, an ant or a human being. We would like to be special of course, which is why we create God, but nature tells a different story.

Yes Jim, but you did not answer the question. I agree, the Jewish man's life is significant to him, it is not significant to the Nazi who put a bullet in his brain. So who is correct?

[seer]

True, but no fallible human knows what God's absolute knowledge of anything, Can you propose in any way a fallible human could have this knowledge.

OK, then we really could have no idea what God ultimately thinks of slavery. He could actually favor it.

We are progressing toward a higher 'Divine Law' which is a higher standard then any morality standard. I still have no idea what 'objective morality' is unless you are equating it to the absolute Divine nature of God.

But you can not know what that higher 'Divine Law' is, in your opinion correct? So how do you know that the prohibition against slavery is a progression towards that law?

If the 'objective morality' is not a set of moral standards, what is it? How can we know what this 'objective morality' is?

I did not say that objective morality is not a set of moral standards. It of course is. And how do we know it? Read your New Testament. And to a lesser degree follow your conscience.

BTW Shuny - cool picture!

[shunyadragon]

OK, then we really could have no idea what God ultimately thinks of slavery. He could actually favor it.


But you can not know what that higher 'Divine Law' is, in your opinion correct? So how do you know that the prohibition against slavery is a progression towards that law?

Your repeating yourself unnecessarily and not answering the question: Can any fallible human know ultimately what God 'thinks?'

I did not say that objective morality is not a set of moral standards. It of course is. . . .

Really!?!?!? Post "1005 in the Infinite Past? thread.

Again James, I'm not arguing for any specific set of moral principles (if I did it would be those found in the teachings of Christ and the New Testament in general). I'm simply making the point that if such a standard does not exist then there is not, nor could there be, correct answers to any moral question,

If objective morality has a set of specific moral principles, What are they?

And how do we know it? Read your New Testament. And to a lesser degree follow your conscience.

Really?!?!? Are you saying you can come up with what is 'perfectly correct' following this anecdotal method?

We are getting to the root of the problem. I actually have done this for over 50 years, from Protestant and Roman Church Sunday schools, prayer, classes preparing for priesthood in the Roman Church, visiting and dialogues with different churches, University level classes in theology, history and philosophy. I came up with a different conclusion then yours, the Baha'i Faith. Billions have walked this path and come up with different conclusions then Mr. Black and you. Are you saying that they failed to be 'perfectly corrrect' because they did not arrive at the same conclusion as Mr. Black and you.

The unanswered question remains: Could you be wrong and not 'perfectly correct.'

Others like myself have answered the question honestly and specifically with no problem: We are fallible human beings and of course we could possibly be wrong. On my part, this is most emphatically true about human knowledge of the absolute truth about God.

[seer]

Your repeating yourself unnecessarily and not answering the question: Can any fallible human know ultimately what God 'thinks?'

Of course, if God tells him. But you can have no idea if the prohibition against slavery is an actual progression towards Divine law or not since we can never actually know what Divine law is.

If objective morality has a set of specific moral principles, What are they?


Really?!?!? Are you saying you can come up with what is 'perfectly correct' following this anecdotal method?

We are getting to the root of the problem. I actually have done this for over 50 years, from Protestant and Roman Church Sunday schools, prayer, classes preparing for priesthood in the Roman Church, visiting and dialogues with different churches, University level classes in theology, history and philosophy. I came up with a different conclusion then yours, the Baha'i Faith. Billions have walked this path and come up with different conclusions then Mr. Black and you. Are you saying that they failed to be 'perfectly corrrect' because they did not arrive at the same conclusion as Mr. Black and you.

The unanswered question remains: Could you be wrong and not 'perfectly correct.'

Others like myself have answered the question honestly and specifically with no problem: We are fallible human beings and of course we could possibly be wrong. On my part, this is most emphatically true about human knowledge of the absolute truth about God.

See this is the problem Shuny, just because you are clueless about what your god wants doesn't mean that all men share that ignorance. But again, like I said, I am not arguing for a specific set moral principles (though they do exist) or about how we come to know them, of if we know them fully - but what human ethics are reduced to if such a standard does not exist - absurdity and meaninglessness.

[shunyadragon]

Of course, if God tells him. But you can have no idea if the prohibition against slavery is an actual progression towards Divine law or not since we can never actually know what Divine law is.

See this is the problem Shuny, just because you are clueless about what your god wants doesn't mean that all men share that ignorance. But again, like I said, I am not arguing for a specific set moral principles (though they do exist) or about how we come to know them, of if we know them fully - but what human ethics are reduced to if such a standard does not exist - absurdity and meaninglessness.

Never claimed to be 'clueless' about what God wants. In fact I do believe that God has revealed 'Divine Law' for the standard of human behavior. I have been very clear that I do not know the 'absolute truth' of the knowledge of God. Please cite me correctly.

It is the problematic claim by you to know the 'absolute truth of God,' and you cannot be wrong.

[seer]

Never claimed to be 'clueless' about what God wants. In fact I do believe that God has revealed 'Divine Law' for the standard of human behavior. I have been very clear that I do not know the 'absolute truth' of the knowledge of God. Please cite me correctly.

But you do not know that at all. You admitted that you can not ultimately know Divine law. So how can you possibly know the ultimate standard for human behavior.

It is the problematic claim by you to know the 'absolute truth of God,' and you cannot be wrong.

Again Shuny, like I asked in the other thread - are you denying that an all powerful God can impart absolute truth to men?

[shunyadragon]

But you do not know that at all. You admitted that you can not ultimately know Divine law. So how can you possibly know the ultimate standard for human behavior.

Again seer you are misquoting me. Please quote me correctly and I will respond.

Again Shuny, like I asked in the other thread - are you denying that an all powerful God can impart absolute truth to men?

Again seer I answered this already clearly and specifically.

The problem is that you claim to know the 'absolute truth of God,' and you cannot be wrong.

[JimL]

Again Jim, I'm not arguing about if or how we come to know these objective moral truths but what logically follows if they do not exist. Certainly you must understand this distinction by now.

But you do admit that they are arbitrary, not absolute, that there is no objective standard per se, but rather that there is an objective giver of arbitrary moral laws, correct?

First, killing political dissidents does not lead to constant war. It didn't in China, the Soviet Union or in present day North Korea. Second Jim, it is not about anything - it is only about who has the power to enforce their will on others. But back to the point: In your world killing political dissidents and not killing political dissidents are equally correct actions. Both A and not A are valid.

Well, according to your understanding of an objective standard that is exactly what you adhere to, so i'm not sure what you are arguing for. Isn't killing political dissidents, homosexuals, witches, non-believers, exactly what your God commanded be done in the O.T. Now to argue for an objective standard, if that standard is arbitrary, then it is no different than the objective standard derived of subjectively from human minds. Its not that A and not A are both valid in the sense that they are both good for human society, it is that neither are objective law ultimately punishible by an objective law giver in the after life. Btw, if your objective morals are not absolute then both A and not A are valid, no?

Yes Jim, but you did not answer the question. I agree, the Jewish man's life is significant to him, it is not significant to the Nazi who put a bullet in his brain. So who is correct?

It isn't a matter of who is correct. Your life is significant to you, but the ants that you've sprayed or squashed under foot are not significant to you. So who is correct? Of course being that we are human and cherish our own lives we, if we are not complete psychopaths, have an evolved empathy for other human beings and so do unto others as we would have done to ourselves. Is the pschopath wrong? We non pschopaths would all say so, but nature itself is amoral or rather impersonal. To paraphrase Shakespeare: "There is no such thing as right or wrong accept thinking makes it so," and nature is not a mind that thinks, we are!

[shunyadragon]

But you do not know that at all. You admitted that you can not ultimately know Divine law. So how can you possibly know the ultimate standard for human behavior.

First, that does not translate as being clueless. Of course I do not know the ultimate truths of anything. God only knows the ultimate truth.

Again Shuny, like I asked in the other thread - are you denying that an all powerful God can impart absolute truth to men?

Yes it is possible God could reveal the absolute truth to a fallible human, but the first BIG problem is the immense diversity of those that claim that they have been revealed the 'absolute truth' from God, and many do not agree and their claims contradict each other. There is no logical nor reasonably way I can distinguish between who is correct out of the thousands of conflicting claims. This diversity of claims goes beyond Christianity to Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and thousand of others who differ greatly. The second problem is the filter of interpretation of what was revealed and language of communication, which limits the understanding who rely on this claim of absolute truth,

The problem is that you claim to know the 'absolute truth of God,' and you cannot be wrong.

[Tassman]

See this is the problem Shuny, just because you are clueless about what your god wants doesn't mean that all men share that ignorance. But again, like I said, I am not arguing for a specific set moral principles (though they do exist) or about how we come to know them, of if we know them fully - but what human ethics are reduced to if such a standard does not exist - absurdity and meaninglessness.

To shunya:

Good. What are they? This is what shuny, Jim and I have requested from you many times to no avail.