An Infinite Past?

[shunyadragon]

Of course female genital mutilation is immoral, do you think God is OK with female genital mutilation as widely practiced?

Of course male genital mutilation is immoral, do you think God is OK with male genital mutilation as widely practiced?

[shunyadragon]

And this absolute moral law can be found where............?



How do you know he's not?

Good questions! So far no response . . . Still waiting . . .

[JimL]

Let's try again. How is it not absurd if there are no correct moral answers? And any more meaningful than our other subjective tastes? I like the color green, you like the color blue - why are those differing choices meaningful?

Because it depends upon what you mean by meaningful. Do moral values serve the intersts of society, the overall interests of humanity? Do they serve a purpose here on earth? If so, then they are meaningful whether or not there is an absolute objective standard out there that they comply with. Stoning people to death because of their sexual orientation, or burning people at the stake, or crucifying them because of their beliefs was neither right or wrong objectively even according to your own religion, but we have come to define them as being wrong from our subjective perspectives. You will argue that there are those societies which still practice these things, but as should be obvious, they are not in the best interests of their societies.

[Tassman]

Good questions! So far no response . . . Still waiting . . .

You'll be waiting a long time I suspect. He has never yet delivered on his claim that "moral reality" is objective and absolute.

[seer]

Of course male genital mutilation is immoral, do you think God is OK with male genital mutilation as widely practiced?

Shuny, you have to define male genital mutilation. Are you speaking simply about standard circumcision? Your own religion does not forbid that. So what are you talking about? But you did not answer my question - is female genital mutilation, where they remove the clitoris to deny women sexual pleasure and desire OK with God?

[seer]

Good questions! So far no response . . . Still waiting . . .

Stop going off subject Shuny, and being Tass' lap dog. Have I not made clear the difference between ontology and epistemology? This argument is about one thing, and one thing alone. Not whether we always know, or did discover objective moral law, but what ethics is reduced to if such a law does not exist. And it is quite strange that you are even arguing with me since you believe that such an objective, Divine law does in fact exist.

[seer]

Because it depends upon what you mean by meaningful. Do moral values serve the intersts of society, the overall interests of humanity? Do they serve a purpose here on earth? If so, then they are meaningful whether or not there is an absolute objective standard out there that they comply with. Stoning people to death because of their sexual orientation, or burning people at the stake, or crucifying them because of their beliefs was neither right or wrong objectively even according to your own religion, but we have come to define them as being wrong from our subjective perspectives. You will argue that there are those societies which still practice these things, but as should be obvious, they are not in the best interests of their societies.

That makes no sense. You prefer blue, I prefer green. Some cultures prefer stoning others don't. So? And what do you mean by the overall interests of humanity? Why is humanity inherently significant? Why is our survival any more meaningful than the millions of extinct species that have gone before us? So again, how are our moral choices meaningful?

[shunyadragon]

Stop going off subject Shuny, and being Tass' lap dog. Have I not made clear the difference between ontology and epistemology?

Actually no, your reference to ontology and epistemology is vague and ambiguous. I fully understand the use of ontology and epistemology as it is used in different philosophies and theologies, but specific definitions and examples are needed to understand them how you use them in terms of 'objective morality.'.

This argument is about one thing, and one thing alone. Not whether we always know, or did discover objective moral law, but what ethics is reduced to if such a law does not exist. And it is quite strange that you are even arguing with me since you believe that such an objective, Divine law does in fact exist.

We do not agree on your vague and ambiguous use of objective morality. You changed the reference to 'objective moral law,' but that is insufficient to resolve the ambiguity. The problem is with your use of 'objective' and 'moral. morality.' It represents the older view of St. Thomas Aquinas. The ambiguity of using 'objective to refer to God's morality and Laws of Logic fails to translate that claim to how this is understood and applied on the human level. I believe in Divine Law and have demonstrated how I believe it applies on the human level. It is a higher standard then any form of morality, human laws, and ethics. You cannot conflate morality and Divine Law by definition in the English language, unless you can be more specific as to what 'objective morality is and how it applies in our world. From the human perspective Laws of Logic also evolve and change, and how they apply evolves and changes. Yes, the Law of non-contradiction is a consistent and uniform Law of Logic, but Mr. Black and you get slippery when it is applied consistently and uniformly as a real world assumption of the objective Methodological Naturalism.

You have failed to adequately define your 'objective morality,' nor described how we follow it. One the other hand I have specifically defined Divine Law with specific example, and described the evolution of Divine Law in the history of humanity. An example of the evolution of Divine Law is how Jesus changed and clarified Old Testament. Therefore, Divine Law from the human perspective is not absolute and unchanging.

I believe there is an even higher standard of Divine Law, which is absolute, then that which is revealed progressively to humanity through the Revelations that are revealed to humanity as the evolving standard of human spirituality and behavior. This higher standard. like the absolute nature of God is beyond human understanding.

[seer]

Actually no, your reference to ontology and epistemology is vague and ambiguous. I fully understand the use of ontology and epistemology as it is used in different philosophies and theologies, but specific definitions and examples are needed to understand them how you use them in terms of 'objective morality.'.

That is complete bunk Shuny, my references to ontology and epistemology have not been in the least vague or ambiguous. I'm using the standard definitions. I have been perfectly clear that argument is not about how or if we come to know these objective moral truths (epistemology) but rather do they exist (ontology). And what logically follows if they don't exist.

I believe there is an even higher standard of Divine Law, which is absolute, then that which is revealed progressively to humanity through the Revelations that are revealed to humanity as the evolving standard of human spirituality and behavior. This higher standard. like the absolute nature of God is beyond human understanding.

Good the we agree on the same thing, in principle. Whether you call it objective or not. And God's moral standard is not beyond human understanding, you already quoted the view on slavery - and that was perfectly understandable.

[JimL]

That makes no sense. You prefer blue, I prefer green. Some cultures prefer stoning others don't. So? And what do you mean by the overall interests of humanity? Why is humanity inherently significant? Why is our survival any more meaningful than the millions of extinct species that have gone before us? So again, how are our moral choices meaningful?

So is stoning people to death morally good according to the objective standard, is burning people alive morally good according to the objective standard, is cucifying people to death morally good according to the objective standard. First off, what good is an objective standard if you don't even know what it is? Humans create laws so that people know them and understand that they are obliged to obey them, in which sense they become objective, but if your Gods objective standard is arbitrary, or if it is not made known, then really, what good is it?
As to your second question: "Why is humanity inherently significant?"- It isn't inherently significant, unless of course you are human.
And in answer to the third, well, I have already answered this but you pretty much ignore it each time, so let me try a different tract: Well reasoned moral choices are meaningful because they serve to enhance our ability to live in peace with one another. Ask yourself what life would be like if we did not set up a set of well reasoned moral principles by which to live. In other words a moral system is meaningful to our existence whether the moral laws are ultimately objective or not! Surely you can see that?

[shunyadragon]

That is complete bunk Shuny, my references to ontology and epistemology have not been in the least vague or ambiguous. I'm using the standard definitions. I have been perfectly clear that argument is not about how or if we come to know these objective moral truths (epistemology) but rather do they exist (ontology). And what logically follows if they don't exist.

you failed to describe which ontology and epistemology. If you have done this please refer to where you did, or describe it now.

Good the we agree on the same thing, in principle. Whether you call it objective or not. And God's moral standard is not beyond human understanding, you already quoted the view on slavery - and that was perfectly understandable.

Please reread my post and cite it correctly. The revealed Divine Law is not the ultimate absolute Divine Law of God.

[Tassman]

Stop going off subject Shuny, and being Tass' lap dog. Have I not made clear the difference between ontology and epistemology? This argument is about one thing, and one thing alone. Not whether we always know, or did discover objective moral law, but what ethics is reduced to if such a law does not exist. And it is quite strange that you are even arguing with me since you believe that such an objective, Divine law does in fact exist.

Just answer the question seer, rather than whinge to shunya about taking my side: You say that “female genital mutilation is immoral” in the context of absolute moral law. So, where can we find this absolute moral law? We’re waiting.

[Tassman]

That makes no sense. You prefer blue, I prefer green. Some cultures prefer stoning others don't. So? And what do you mean by the overall interests of humanity?

Nonsense. Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and long pre-date the development of religious notions about divine law. They are a consequence of natural selection.

Moral instincts were naturally built into us, because they were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. Religion-based morality is only useful in that it can reinforce existing morals thereby offering a survival advantage.

Why is humanity inherently significant? Why is our survival any more meaningful than the millions of extinct species that have gone before us? So again, how are our moral choices meaningful?

“Humanity isn't inherently significant, but the evolved instinct of every living organism is to survive; humans are no different in this respect.

[seer]

you failed to describe which ontology and epistemology. If you have done this please refer to where you did, or describe it now.

That is false Shuny, I have explained more that once that ontology has to do with existence in this case the existence of objective moral truth, or Divine law in your case, whether is exists or not. And that epistemology has to do with how or if or when we come to know or understand said law. And my argument has nothing to do with how we come to know Divine Law or if we do, but what logically follows if such a moral standard does not exist. And what follows is that there are no right answers to any moral question, all moral reasoning is meaningless and absurd. You proved this by reducing moral questions to personal preference, like the preference for brown rice.

Please reread my post and cite it correctly. The revealed Divine Law is not the ultimate absolute Divine Law of God.

So God may actually favor slavery? How could you know that He doesn't actually favor slavery if His ultimate Divine law is unknowable?

[seer]

So is stoning people to death morally good according to the objective standard, is burning people alive morally good according to the objective standard, is cucifying people to death morally good according to the objective standard. First off, what good is an objective standard if you don't even know what it is? Humans create laws so that people know them and understand that they are obliged to obey them, in which sense they become objective, but if your Gods objective standard is arbitrary, or if it is not made known, then really, what good is it?

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, and that all moral reasoning in the end is absurd and meaningless. And Jim you have done nothing thus far to disprove that notion - apart from an emotional appeal.

As to your second question: "Why is humanity inherently significant?"- It isn't inherently significant, unless of course you are human.
And in answer to the third, well, I have already answered this but you pretty much ignore it each time, so let me try a different tract: Well reasoned moral choices are meaningful because they serve to enhance our ability to live in peace with one another. Ask yourself what life would be like if we did not set up a set of well reasoned moral principles by which to live. In other words a moral system is meaningful to our existence whether the moral laws are ultimately objective or not! Surely you can see that?

So human beings are not inherently significant but moral laws that enhance their survival are? That makes no sense. Sure the ant colony is efficiently ordered but it makes no difference if it wasn't because their survival makes no difference.