An Infinite Past?

[shunyadragon]

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, . . .

This a claim as what your ontology describes, ant not an explanation.

. . . 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.

A definition of epistemology does not define 'objective morality,' nor provide a context of 'objective morality,' nor examples. I defined Divine Law and gave examples , and context in human history.

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

I 'define' the nature of the absolute nature of being of God is unknown to humanity. What is Revealed to humanity is not the absolute knowledge of God. I believe that this is supported in the Bible.

Even Thomas Aquinas supports this:

Source: http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/godtalk.html

Aquinas offers a very compelling account of how to reconcile the transcendence of God with His immanence. This reconciliation is most compelling because Aquinas claims that God is most transcendent from, and most immanent in, creation for the very same reason, i.e. because God is Ipsum esse subsistens (Subsistent Act of Existing Itself).

According to Aquinas, all creatures are fundementally composed of essence and existence. He argues that because one can know the essence of a created thing, i.e. what a thing is, without thereby knowing anything about whether it exists in reality, essence differs from existence. Thus, every created thing is a composition of what it is and an act of existing whereby it is a real, actual thing. (For more on this, see On Being and Essence, Chapter 4.) This act of existing, esse, is sometimes refered to as that feature about things that makes them something rather than nothing, or real as opposed to imagined. (I don't think that these ways of speaking are enough to prove the reality of the distinction, but they illustrate the point.) Since every creature is a composition of essence and esse, there must be a First Cause of this composition that is Himself uncomposed. In God there is no distinction between What He is, i.e. His Essence, and the act wherby He is. (Summa Theologiae Ia, 3, 4) Thus, because God is utterly simple, and not composed, and utterly perfect, he utterly transcends every creature.

However, since no creature exists through itself of itself, every creature is continually kept in existence through continual active causality of God. God is the cause of the being of all things precisely because He is Subsistent Being Itself (ipsum esse subsistens)

Now, since God is being itself by His own essence, created being must be his proper effect....Therefore, as long as a thing has being, so long must God be present to it, according to its mode of being. But being is innermost in each thing and most fundementally present within all things.... Hence it must be that God is in all things and innermostly. (S.T. Ia, 8, 1)

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

This a claim as what your ontology describes, ant not an explanation.

What is wrong with you? I was very clear in my definitions and how I was using them. But this is your MO Shuny, when you don't have an answer you muddy the waters.

A definition of epistemology does not define 'objective morality,' nor provide a context of 'objective morality,' nor examples. I defined Divine Law and gave examples , and context in human history.

Again Shuny, what is wrong with you? I never claimed that epistemology was a definition of objective morality - THAT WAS NOT THE POINT.

It is real simple: Does God's law exist (ontology), and what logically follows if it doesn't. I'm not arguing about epistemology (whether or how we come to know God's law).

I 'define' the nature of the absolute nature of being of God is unknown to humanity. What is Revealed to humanity is not the absolute knowledge of God. I believe that this is supported in the Bible.

Even Thomas Aquinas supports this:

I never suggested that we can know God in totality, but that again WAS NOT THE POINT. Aquinas never suggested that we could not understand Divine law, your quote does not even reference that. And if you are correct, that we can't understand ultimate Divine law, then you or we have no clue what God's view on slavery actually is - perhaps God really favors slavery - how would we know?

[shunyadragon]

What is wrong with you? I was very clear in my definitions and how I was using them. But this is your MO Shuny, when you don't have an answer you muddy the waters.

Still, your definition of your epistemology fails to define what you are referring to as 'objective morality.'

Again Shuny, what is wrong with you? I never claimed that epistemology was a definition of objective morality - THAT WAS NOT THE POINT.

I did not say that your definition of epistemology was 'objective morality. I said you need to define 'objective morality' regardless of your definition of epistemology.

It is real simple: Does God's law exist (ontology),

Agreed, but morality cannot be equated to God's Law by definition, it a human social construct.

. . . .and what logically follows if it doesn't. I'm not arguing about epistemology (whether or how we come to know God's law).

Confusing

I never suggested that we can know God in totality, but that again WAS NOT THE POINT. Aquinas never suggested that we could not understand Divine law, your quote does not even reference that. And if you are correct, that we can't understand ultimate Divine law, then you or we have no clue what God's view on slavery actually is - perhaps God really favors slavery - how would we know?

The ultimate absolute Divine Law is the ultimate absolute nature of God, which is not known from the human perspective. You may not agree with this ontology, but that the Baha'i ontology I believe in. God progressively Reveals Divine Laws for humanity, which are not absolute, but relative to time they revealed.

The question is what God Reveals as the Divine Law for humans at the time he reveals the Divine Law. IT was not until the 1840's that God Revealed the Divine Law against slavery. At that time forward all forms of slavery are forbidden. The Divine Laws are progressive 'truths' for humanity as humanity spiritually matures.

Prior to 1844 the Divine Law absolutely forbidding Slavery did not exist, therefore it is human subjectivity concerning whether human morals and human laws that would determine whether slavery illegal or immoral.

[JimL]

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).

But you didn't answer the question seer. Is stoning people, burning people, or crucifying people to death an objectively moral thing to do or not? Yes or no?

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.

But i gave my answer to this question seer and you just continue to ignore it. I explained in what sense subjective morals are meaningful, how they enhance peoples ability to live together in peace etc etc. which you don't even attempt to refute with an argument. All you do in reply is to continue to assert that subjective morals are absurd and meaningless. So the ball is in your court seer. Answer the question please. If the moral against murder is purely subjective, does it still serve a purpose? What about theft, rape, etc etc? If morals are purely subjective, but serve to enhance the social order and lives of human beings, does that make them absurd and meaningless. I say no. If they are subjective and yet serve a purpose for the good of humanity then they obviously are not meaningless or absurd. How do you counter that argument?

So human beings are not inherently significant but moral laws that enhance their survival are? That makes no sense.

If it makes no sense it is because you said it, not me. I said that Humanity is not inherently significant, meaning that humanity, like other life forms, dinosuars for instance, is insignificant as far as existence itself is concerned, but they are not insignificant as far as they themselves are concerned. And I never said anything about moral laws being inherently significant. If humanity is not inherently significant then obviously neither would be their subjective morals.

Sure the ant colony is efficiently ordered but it makes no difference if it wasn't because their survival makes no difference.

It makes a difference to the ants seer, to their survival. The universe doesn't care if they survive or not, any more than it cares that the dinosaurs didn't.

[Tassman]

It is real simple: Does God's law exist (ontology),

To shunya

Yes it “real simple”: If God’s Law exists; you can tell us what it is in specific instances - e.g. female genital mutilation being immoral. Where do we find this absolute moral law of God? Or are you merely expressing your personal opinion?

and what logically follows if it doesn't. I'm not arguing about epistemology (whether or how we come to know God's law).

What logically follows if it doesn't is the genetic predisposition of morality evolving as a consequence of natural selection, because it was beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals.

[seer]

The ultimate absolute Divine Law is the ultimate absolute nature of God, which is not known from the human perspective. You may not agree with this ontology, but that the Baha'i ontology I believe in. God progressively Reveals Divine Laws for humanity, which are not absolute, but relative to time they revealed.

The question is what God Reveals as the Divine Law for humans at the time he reveals the Divine Law. IT was not until the 1840's that God Revealed the Divine Law against slavery. At that time forward all forms of slavery are forbidden. The Divine Laws are progressive 'truths' for humanity as humanity spiritually matures.

So then you have no idea if God favors slavery or not since we can not ultimately understand Divine Law. And for Divine Law to progressive there has to be an objective goal or standard. We have to move from - to, morally. But that requires an objective moral standard that we are moving towards.

[seer]

But you didn't answer the question seer. Is stoning people, burning people, or crucifying people to death an objectively moral thing to do or not? Yes or no?

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.

But i gave my answer to this question seer and you just continue to ignore it. I explained in what sense subjective morals are meaningful, how they enhance peoples ability to live together in peace etc etc. which you don't even attempt to refute with an argument. All you do in reply is to continue to assert that subjective morals are absurd and meaningless. So the ball is in your court seer. Answer the question please. If the moral against murder is purely subjective, does it still serve a purpose? What about theft, rape, etc etc? If morals are purely subjective, but serve to enhance the social order and lives of human beings, does that make them absurd and meaningless. I say no. If they are subjective and yet serve a purpose for the good of humanity then they obviously are not meaningless or absurd. How do you counter that argument?

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

If it makes no sense it is because you said it, not me. I said that Humanity is not inherently significant, meaning that humanity, like other life forms, dinosuars for instance, is insignificant as far as existence itself is concerned, but they are not insignificant as far as they themselves are concerned. And I never said anything about moral laws being inherently significant. If humanity is not inherently significant then obviously neither would be their subjective morals.

It makes a difference to the ants seer, to their survival. The universe doesn't care if they survive or not, any more than it cares that the dinosaurs didn't.

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.

[shunyadragon]

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.

The highlighted above is very revealing concerning your use of 'objective morality.' I do not believe you have made this statement before. This greatly increases the fog index of what you consider 'objective morality.' I would consider the teachings of Jesus Crist as 'Divine Law' as above any form of morality, which He clarified and changed from older OT Divine Law, but that does not bring any clarity to what you describe as 'objective morality.'

It not feasible to disprove something that is an assertion without presenting an 'objective' specific basis for your argument. Just asserting a moral standard that is 'from God' is insufficient to present an argument for 'objective morality.' Your asserting a nebulous vague 'objective morality' that does not have 'a specific set of moral principles.' to assert that the diversity of human morals and ethics are meaningless and absurd. The fact and definition of morals and morality is that they are human cultural constraints does not make them absurd nor meaningless. They do have significant common moral attributes such as the moral law against wrongful death.

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.

Humans are inherently significant for ontology of atheists, agnostics, theists, deists and whatever. You are making unfounded projections of what you assert other people believe which does not reflect what they actually believe.

[shunyadragon]

So then you have no idea if God favors slavery or not since we can not ultimately understand Divine Law. And for Divine Law to progressive there has to be an objective goal or standard.

Does not reflect what I posted. Please come again with a coherent response.

We can know the 'Divine Law' that God has revealed that is specific for this age. We cannot know the absolute nature of God.

We have to move from - to, morally. But that requires an objective moral standard that we are moving towards.

The highlighted does not make sense unless you can clearly define what 'objective morality.'

[seer]

The highlighted above is very revealing concerning your use of 'objective morality.' I do not believe you have made this statement before. This greatly increases the fog index of what you consider 'objective morality.' I would consider the teachings of Jesus Crist as 'Divine Law' as above any form of morality, which He clarified and changed from older OT Divine Law, but that does not bring any clarity to what you describe as 'objective morality.'

Nonsense Shuny, this argument was never about specific moral rules. A distinction I made time and time again. But about what follows if no objective or Divine law exists. Surely even you can understand the difference.

It not feasible to disprove something that is an assertion without presenting an 'objective' specific basis for your argument. Just asserting a moral standard that is 'from God' is insufficient to present an argument for 'objective morality.' Your asserting a nebulous vague 'objective morality' that does not have 'a specific set of moral principles.' to assert that the diversity of human morals and ethics are meaningless and absurd. The fact and definition of morals and morality is that they are human cultural constraints does not make them absurd nor meaningless. They do have significant common moral attributes such as the moral law against wrongful death.

But they clearly are meaningless. You yourself compared moral choices to preferences for food. Are our personal or cultural preferences for particular foods meaningful in any real sense - of course not. In the US political dissents have freedom of expression, in Mao's China political dissents were executed. You like brown rice, I like mashed potatoes - meaningless.

Humans are inherently significant for ontology of atheists, agnostics, theists, deists and whatever. You are making unfounded projections of what you assert other people believe which does not reflect what they actually believe.

What are you taking about? Did the Nazis believe that the Jews were inherently significant? You are not making sense.

[seer]

Does not reflect what I posted. Please come again with a coherent response.

We can know the 'Divine Law' that God has revealed that is specific for this age. We cannot know the absolute nature of God

It is perfectly coherent, the problem Shuny is that your position is not coherent. You are the one who claimed that we can not know "ultimate absolute Divine Law" so it follows that we can not know if God ultimately favors slavery or not.

The highlighted does not make sense unless you can clearly define what 'objective morality.'

What? YOU MADE THE CLAIM: The Divine Laws are progressive 'truths' for humanity as humanity spiritually matures. What are we progressing too? What standard are we moving towards?

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense Shuny, this argument was never about specific moral rules. A distinction I made time and time again. But about what follows if no objective or Divine law exists. Surely even you can understand the difference.

Objectively, we have observations of only the real world we live in, We do not have any ability to objectively observe two worlds one wirh objective morality and one without. As for 'Divine Law' we do have the ability to directly and objectively observe different religions functioning under different sets of 'Divine Laws' and those cultures which do not have 'Divine Laws.'

But they clearly are meaningless. You yourself compared moral choices to preferences for food. Are our personal or cultural preferences for particular foods meaningful in any real sense - of course not. In the US political dissents have freedom of expression, in Mao's China political dissents were executed. You like brown rice, I like mashed potatoes - meaningless.

Clearly they are meaningful to the cultures which have the moral systems. You are misinterpreting my reference to Brown rice versus white bread, even though I do consider white bread immoral and self destructive, that includes mashed potatoes.

What are you taking about? Did the Nazis believe that the Jews were inherently significant? You are not making sense.

Did the Christians who slaughtered Jews and others inherently insignificant? You are not making sense considering the objective comparisons we can make concerning moral behavior. The Nazi and Hitler card does not work when you take the whole of history of the moral behavior of different religions and cultures into consideration

[shunyadragon]

It is perfectly coherent, the problem Shuny is that your position is not coherent. You are the one who claimed that we can not know "ultimate absolute Divine Law" so it follows that we can not know if God ultimately favors slavery or not.

It is perfectly coherent that God has revealed a Divine Law prohibiting slavery. It is not coherent that we could possibly know the absolute nature of God. You may not agree, but 'So it follows' as I have already stated clearly the ontology of the Baha'i Faith that the ultimate absolute nature of God is unknown to fallible human knowledge. We know only that which has been revealed by God.

What? YOU MADE THE CLAIM: The Divine Laws are progressive 'truths' for humanity as humanity spiritually matures. What are we progressing too? What standard are we moving towards?

We are progressively evolving to a more mature noble spiritual nature of humanity, as witnessed by the progressive evolution of 'truths' from the Jewish OT to the NT. God only knows the future of Revelation and the spiritual nature we are evolving to. The evolution of the 'Divine Law' concerning slavery is a clear example/. We have evolved to the standard that today slavery is prohibited by 'Divine Law.' Another example is that a new 'Divine Law' prohibits the wagging of war for religious reasons.

[seer]

Objectively, we have observations of only the real world we live in, We do not have any ability to objectively observe two worlds one wirh objective morality and one without. As for 'Divine Law' we do have the ability to directly and objectively observe different religions functioning under different sets of 'Divine Laws' and those cultures which do not have 'Divine Laws.'

Still not the point Shuny. Try to understand what I'm actually saying. Let me repeat: this argument was never about specific moral rules. A distinction I made time and time again. But about what follows if no objective or Divine law exists. Surely even you can understand the difference.

Clearly they are meaningful to the cultures which have the moral systems. You are misinterpreting my reference to Brown rice versus white bread, even though I do consider white bread immoral and self destructive, that includes mashed potatoes.

You are making my point, the distinction is meaningless.

Did the Christians who slaughtered Jews and others inherently insignificant? You are not making sense considering the objective comparisons we can make concerning moral behavior. The Nazi and Hitler card does not work when you take the whole of history of the moral behavior of different religions and cultures into consideration

Really? Did you actually miss the point - how unusual ! So tell me who is actually correct Shuny - the Jews who felt themselves to be inherently significant or the Nazis or Christians who didn't.

[seer]

It is perfectly coherent that God has revealed a Divine Law prohibiting slavery. It is not coherent that we could possibly know the absolute nature of God. You may not agree, but 'So it follows' as I have already stated clearly the ontology of the Baha'i Faith that the ultimate absolute nature of God is unknown to fallible human knowledge. We know only that which has been revealed by God.

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.

We are progressively evolving to a more mature noble spiritual nature of humanity, as witnessed by the progressive evolution of 'truths' from the Jewish OT to the NT. God only knows the future of Revelation and the spiritual nature we are evolving to. The evolution of the 'Divine Law' concerning slavery is a clear example/. We have evolved to the standard that today slavery is prohibited by 'Divine Law.' Another example is that a new 'Divine Law' prohibits the wagging of war for religious reasons.

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