An Infinite Past?

[shunyadragon]

Why aren't you comfortable? If it is really the law of God then it is by definition objective.

Your definition as per Saint Thomas Aquinas. As explained below I do not use the term 'objective' in this way. I believe it is the Law of God, but of course there are many others who do not. They may consider it a good law, but not the Law of God.

It would exist independently of our subjective reasoning. It wouldn't depend on our subjective or relative conclusions. Its source exist apart from humankind.

The use of 'objective' to refer to 'being from God' in this case is not independent of 'our subjective or relative conclusion as a 'Source' existing apart from humankind.' This is the problem of extremely subjective variability of the human claims concerning what they claim as the 'objectivity' of God.

Another way of putting the problem, if I use the word 'objective' in what is 'objective' from God may not be what is 'objective' from God in your view.

I consider 'objective' to be verifiable in the physical world outside human reason thought alone. Most metaphysical beliefs are subjective in my view, because they cannot be verified in the physical world outside human reasoning and thought.

I can understand your use of 'objective' as being from God, and sort of translate to my thinking for purposes of discussion, but linking it with the concept of morality represents a problem concerning the ambiguous nature of what you would call the standard of 'objective morality' that would the moral standard to follow. There is also the problem of the difference of what you may consider the Law of God, and I consider the Law of God, we obviously doe not agree. What would be the objective standard that would arbitrate this disagreement.

[JimL]

Jim that was not the point I was getting at with Shuny, which was that the Law of God would be equally objective as the laws of logic.

Except for the fact that neither the one nor the other, laws of logic, nor moral laws, are objective in the sense of being supernaturally derived or legally authoritative. Because we have no access to your objective moral standard, then for us at any rate, morals are subjective, and as you have agreed, the adoption of subjective morals by society is not in itself absurd. Thus without evidence of your objective moral standard, you have no case to make other than "it is what I believe." It is a God of the gaps argument most likely based on your desire for ultimate justice, and probably more importantly, ultimate reward. I agree that shunya seems to be sitting on the fence here, but that may be because though he believes in God and creation, he doesn't believe, as do you, in an authoritative God who lays down the law. But I don't know.

[JimL]

No Jim, it would not be absurd society to adopt moral laws, the laws themselves would be absurd. Which culture is actually correct - the one that supports Female genital mutilation or the one that outlaws it. There is no answer to that Jim in your world, nor can there be.

Yes, so some man made laws are absurd and unwise. So what? That makes them wrong in so far as the effect they have, but it doesn't mean that they violated some supernatural objective standard.

Except again, all moral reasoning is reduced to absurdity. Look at any other human endeavor, science, history, engineering, mathematics, in all those cases there is only one right answer to specific questions. Two rocks and two rocks don't equal four rocks and not four rocks. Napoleon wasn't both defeated and not defeated at Waterloo. Big bang cosmology is not both true and not true. When you cross the street it is either the bus or you. This is not how anything else in the universe - except morality according to you.

Apples and oranges. You can't compare the physical nature of the world with ethics. All moral reasoning is not reduced to absurdity, it is either wise or unwise. Again, you want for morality to be objective and answerable to ultimate justice and reward, therefore you want for them to be ultimately objective and authoritative, and that is not the purpose behind the establishment of morals in the first place.

[Tassman]

What are you taking about? How can I back up my assertion when it is a QUESTION TO YOU? But you again avoided the question - do YOU believe that the laws of logic are universal and objective. Can the law of non-contradiction be violate? If so where and how?

To shunya:

The Laws of Logic are only universally true inasmuch as we determine them to be true – just as we determine 2+2=4. Logic, like math’s, is merely a tool fashioned by us to ensure self-consistency and prevent errors of false inference. It has no objective value other than the use to which we put it.

[seer]

Your definition as per Saint Thomas Aquinas. As explained below I do not use the term 'objective' in this way. I believe it is the Law of God, but of course there are many others who do not. They may consider it a good law, but not the Law of God.


The use of 'objective' to refer to 'being from God' in this case is not independent of 'our subjective or relative conclusion as a 'Source' existing apart from humankind.' This is the problem of extremely subjective variability of the human claims concerning what they claim as the 'objectivity' of God.

Another way of putting the problem, if I use the word 'objective' in what is 'objective' from God may not be what is 'objective' from God in your view.

I consider 'objective' to be verifiable in the physical world outside human reason thought alone. Most metaphysical beliefs are subjective in my view, because they cannot be verified in the physical world outside human reasoning and thought.

I can understand your use of 'objective' as being from God, and sort of translate to my thinking for purposes of discussion, but linking it with the concept of morality represents a problem concerning the ambiguous nature of what you would call the standard of 'objective morality' that would the moral standard to follow. There is also the problem of the difference of what you may consider the Law of God, and I consider the Law of God, we obviously doe not agree. What would be the objective standard that would arbitrate this disagreement.

Again Shuny, God's law would be objective, and exist objectively even if we subjectively understood it or didn't understood it at all. Again the difference between ontology and epistemology. Our subjective reasoning does not change the objective nature of said laws.

[seer]

Yes, so some man made laws are absurd and unwise. So what? That makes them wrong in so far as the effect they have, but it doesn't mean that they violated some supernatural objective standard.

No Jim, all law would be absurd because there never is, or could be, a right answer. Again is female genital mutilation good or bad? Well it is considered good by some and wrong by others - it is both A and not A.

Apples and oranges. You can't compare the physical nature of the world with ethics. All moral reasoning is not reduced to absurdity, it is either wise or unwise. Again, you want for morality to be objective and answerable to ultimate justice and reward, therefore you want for them to be ultimately objective and authoritative, and that is not the purpose behind the establishment of morals in the first place.

It is not apple and oranges to me, it is how the universe works. No where in any other discipline or human endeavor do we find that both A and not A to be equally correct. But you say, in this one special case, that it is all different - there is no right answer. Like I said, I have no reason to assume that is the case.

[shunyadragon]

Again Shuny, God's law would be objective, and exist objectively even if we subjectively understood it or didn't understood it at all. Again the difference between ontology and epistemology. Our subjective reasoning does not change the objective nature of said laws.

This is not an again seer, you have injected a new qualification here on your part that I brought up in my previous post. Please note the highlighted. The problem is human fallibility and limited understanding of God's Law and Revelation in terms of objectivity. In my view God's Law and Revelation would be 'absolute and pure truth'* from God's perspective, and of course beyond human thought and reasoning, and almost all theists would accept this belief. You are apparently using the term 'objective' (from God) to describe the 'Laws of Logic,'this presents a similar problem, yes, from God's perspective God's Laws of Logic would be 'absolute and pure truth'* The Law of non-contradiction would be 'absolute and pure truth' from God's perspective, but not from the human perspective as used in logic and reasoning, particularly when used in metaphysical subjective arguments.

Acknowledging the 'human subjectivity and fallibility' of understanding Revelation and God's Law from the human perspective describes 'morality and Laws of Logic as I described: Human conventions with both objective and subjective attributes. God's Laws represent the commands from God through Revelation, but remain subject to fallible human understanding. For Example the Law of God concerning the prohibition of all forms of slavery, also another example the social and legal equality of men and women, are the standard for humanity since the mid 1800s, but remains subject to human fallible understanding, thus not God's 'absolute and pure truth' from the human perspective.

The other qualification from the human perspective is that the Law of God and Revelation evolves over time, which is not well accepted from the perspective of older religions, which endorse a more static form of Revelation and the Law of God. As a result human morality (social and cultural standards of behavior), Laws of Logic, and knowledge evolve over time.

In today's world human knowledge and understanding is evolving faster then ever before in history, and even the understanding of the Revealed scripture of the Baha'i Faith is subject to change. For example; the evolving nature of the knowledge of science is a form of Revelation from the Baha'i perspective, and even Baha'i scripture concerning the nature of our physical existence must be understood in terms of the changing nature of our scientific knowledge.

This constant evolving and changing nature should not be interpreted as 'relativistic anything goes egoistic change from the human perspective.' There is indeed a consistent positive progressive nature of the spiritual and physical evolution of humanity, which preserves the nobility of human spiritual nature.

Enough for now.


* Objective how you are using it. The nature of God is indeed 'absolute and pure truth' from God's perspective.

[seer]

This is not an again seer, you have injected a new qualification here on your part that I brought up in my previous post. Please note the highlighted. The problem is human fallibility and limited understanding of God's Law and Revelation in terms of objectivity. In my view God's Law and Revelation would be 'absolute and pure truth'* from God's perspective, and of course beyond human thought and reasoning, and almost all theists would accept this belief. You are apparently using the term 'objective' (from God) to describe the 'Laws of Logic,'this presents a similar problem, yes, from God's perspective God's Laws of Logic would be 'absolute and pure truth'*

Acknowledging the 'human subjectivity and fallibility' of understanding Revelation and God's Law from the human perspective describes 'morality and Laws of Logic as I described: Human conventions with both objective and subjective attributes. God's Laws represent the commands from God through Revelation, but remain subject to fallible human understanding. For Example the Law of God concerning the prohibition of all forms of slavery, also another example the social and legal equality of men and women, are the standard for humanity since the mid 1800s, but remains subject to human fallible understanding, thus not God's 'absolute and pure truth' from the human perspective.

The other qualification from the human perspective is that the Law of God and Revelation evolves over time, which is not well accepted from the perspective of older religions, which endorse a more static form of Revelation and the Law of God. As a result human morality (social and cultural standards of behavior), Laws of Logic, and knowledge evolve over time.

In today's world human knowledge and understanding is evolving faster then ever before in history, and even the understanding of the Revealed scripture of the Baha'i Faith is subject to change. For example; the evolving nature of the knowledge of science is a form of Revelation from the Baha'i perspective, and even Baha'i scripture concerning the nature of our physical existence must be understood in terms of the changing nature of our scientific knowledge.

Enough for now.


* Objective how you are using it. The nature of God is indeed 'absolute and pure truth' from God's perspective.

No Shuny, I have not injected anything new. Whether for God's law or commands or for the laws of logic I have made it a point to differentiate between ontology (their actual existence/nature) and epistemology (how we come to know them, if we come know them). That is why I used the example about the color red, that it would still exist even if we all were born color blind. And I'm not sure what scientific knowledge has to do with objective moral truths.

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, I have not injected anything new. Whether for God's law or commands or for the laws of logic I have made it a point to differentiate between ontology (their actual existence/nature) and epistemology (how we come to know them, if we come know them). That is why I used the example about the color red, that it would still exist even if we all were born color blind.

Nonetheless, your example of the color red is objectively verifiable, even understood scientifically, and not subject to change. This example is too simplistic too be a sufficient to justify your argument for 'Objective Morality' and 'Objective Laws of Logic' which have subjective aspects which change over time, and their application of our understanding.

In fact, this example would justify the validity of Methodological Naturalism with the assumption that the Natural Laws governing our physical existence are objectively grounded and were not different in the past, nor will change in the future. The assumption of the consistency and objectivity of the color red challenges the view of Mr. Black questioning the consistency of human senses, and consistent and uniform nature of our physical existence.

[seer]

Nonetheless, your example of the color red is objectively verifiable, even understood scientifically, and not subject to change. This example is too simplistic too be a sufficient to justify your argument for 'Objective Morality' and 'Objective Laws of Logic' which have subjective aspects which change over time, and their application of our understanding.

The laws of logic do not change over time, our understanding may change, we may have greater or lesser clarity. The law of non-contradiction, or excluded middle, do not change - ever. How we apply or understand them is a different story.

In fact, this example would justify the validity of Methodological Naturalism with the assumption that the Natural Laws governing our physical existence are objectively grounded and were not different in the past, nor will change in the future. The assumption of the consistency and objectivity of the color red challenges the view of Mr. Black questioning the consistency of human senses, and consistent and uniform nature of our physical existence.

Mr. Black did not question uniformity, he makes the point that uniformity only makes sense if God is in control. That we would have no such confidence about uniformity apart from God - and he is correct. The same with human rationality, God is the only confident ground for the reliably of our senses.

[shunyadragon]

The laws of logic do not change over time, our understanding may change, we may have greater or lesser clarity. The law of non-contradiction, or excluded middle, do not change - ever. How we apply or understand them is a different story.

Correct the Law of non-contradiction and the 'absolute and pure truth' from God's perspective does not change over time, but that is not the problem and subject of what is the nature from the human perspective, which lies at the foundation of the weakness of the propositional world view. 'Can humans make the absolute certain interpretation of scripture as Mr. Black claims.

Mr. Black did not question uniformity, he makes the point that uniformity only makes sense if God is in control. That we would have no such confidence about uniformity apart from God - and he is correct. The same with human rationality, God is the only confident ground for the reliably of our senses.

If red was read 13 billion years ago, and red is red 13 billion years from now it makes no different if the observer believes in God, Consistency and uniformity in nature and the validity of Methodological Naturalism is more then objectively justified by your argument. Yes, Mr. Black does object to uniformity in nature, and questions Methodological Naturalism to justify his YEC belief, from which he argues that red may not be red 13 billion years ago, nor red may not be red 13 billion years from now.

[seer]

Correct the Law of non-contradiction and the 'absolute and pure truth' from God's perspective does not change over time, but that is not the problem and subject of what is the nature from the human perspective, which lies at the foundation of the weakness of the propositional world view. 'Can humans make the absolute certain interpretation of scripture as Mr. Black claims.

But that is not what Mr. Black believes, as a Calvinist and a Presuppositionalist, he would say that it is God that causes men to know these things with certainty. Not that we figure it out ourselves. The only way to counter that would be to say that God can not cause men to know certain truths with certainty.

If red was read 13 billion years ago, and red is red 13 billion years from now it makes no different if the observer believes in God, Consistency and uniformity in nature and the validity of Methodological Naturalism is more then objectively justified by your argument. Yes, Mr. Black does object to uniformity in nature, and questions Methodological Naturalism to justify his YEC belief, from which he argues that red may not be red 13 billion years ago, nor red may not be red 13 billion years from now.

Show me where Mr. Black objects to actual uniformity, rather than the idea that uniformity can't make sense apart from God, or that you can have confidence in uniformity apart from God.

[shunyadragon]

But that is not what Mr. Black believes, as a Calvinist and a Presuppositionalist, he would say that it is God that causes men to know these things with certainty. Not that we figure it out ourselves. The only way to counter that would be to say that God can not cause men to know certain truths with certainty.

No that is not the only counter or whatever. Either the nature of our existence is uniform and consistent or it is not. Mr. Back is believer in the literal understanding of Creation as it is in the Bible. and does not accept the Methodological Naturalism. He also believes that God gives only a select number of believers, 'the elect,'and only they can know certain truths with certainty, which does not include science.

Show me where Mr. Black objects to actual uniformity, rather than the idea that uniformity can't make sense apart from God, or that you can have confidence in uniformity apart from God.

Uniformity is either true or false. The uniform and consistent nature of existence is the only thing that makes sense based on the evidence, unless one appeals to a form of Fideism. Mr. Black has posted enough to fill a landfill. He is evasive and slippery with constant comments such as 'How could one really know whatever is true? instead of directly responding to issues and dialogue. So far his belief in a literal Biblical Creation concludes he does not hold to the uniformity of our physical existence as verified by science.

Simply ask Mr. Black if God has chosen him as one of the 'elect' to know with certainty certain truths. If he has been selected let him reveal to us the truth of the matter.

If red was objectively red 13 billion years ago, today, and 13 billion years in the future, then uniformity is the reality regardless of whether the observer believes in God or not.

Since red is red objectively regardless whether the observer is blind or not, is our physical existence objectively uniform and consistent?

[seer]

No that is not the only counter or whatever. Either the nature of our existence is uniform and consistent or it is not. Mr. Back is believer in the literal understanding of Creation as it is in the Bible. and does not accept the Methodological Naturalism. He also believes that God gives only a select number of believers, 'the elect,'and only they can know certain truths with certainty, which does not include science.

But that does not counter his point Shuny. It may well be the case that God only gives a limited number of men this certainty. And it also may be the case that nature is uniformed but human beings, scientists, are misreading the evidence or don't have enough facts to draw conclusions with any certainty.

Uniformity is either true or false. The uniform and consistent nature of existence is the only thing that makes sense, unless on appeals to a form of Fideism. Mr. Black has posted enough to fill a landfill. He is evasive and slippery with constant comments such as 'How could really know this is true? instead of directly responding to issues and dialogue. So far his belief in a literal Biblical Creation concludes he does not hold to the uniformity of our physical existence as verified by science.

Again Shuny, his point is that we can only have certainty about uniformity if God is in control. There is no such confidence apart from God. "Science" can not give us such confidence. And how many times have to told me that science was a work in progress, and that science does not deal in certainties?

[shunyadragon]

But that does not counter his point Shuny. It may well be the case that God only gives a limited number of men this certainty. And it also may be the case that nature is uniformed but human beings, scientists, are misreading the evidence or don't have enough facts to draw conclusions with any certainty.

This is a highly hypothetical argument with an unnecessarily high fog index about what is the degree of certainty of human knowledge. The scientific methods and knowledge that gives us the confidence and certainty to flew in jet aircraft is the same that gives use the knowledge of earth history and evolution. If what you say is true above we have no certainty of any human knowledge including the most subjective metaphysical knowledge.

Reminder: The knowledge of science is based on the non-contradiction of the objective observations and conclusion of our physical existence. If the non-contradiction law holds, the uniformity of our physical existence is reality.

Again Shuny, his point is that we can only have certainty about uniformity if God is in control. There is no such confidence apart from God. "Science" can not give us such confidence. And how many times have to told me that science was a work in progress, and that science does not deal in certainties?

You actually need to define what sort of certainty is necessary for reliable knowledge from the human perspective. Since you acknowledged fallibility and limitations of human comprehension, can we know anything with any degree of certainty.

Again Shuny, God's law would be objective, and exist objectively even if we subjectively understood it or didn't understood it at all. Again the difference between ontology and epistemology. Our subjective reasoning does not change the objective nature of said laws.

Did not answer the question:

If red was objectively red 13 billion years ago, today, and 13 billion years in the future, then uniformity is the reality regardless of whether the observer believes in God or not.

Since red is red objectively regardless whether the observer is blind or not, is our physical existence objectively uniform and consistent?