An infinite series of finite causes.

[JimL]

Nonsense. Science tells me that my parents came before me, their parents before them, and so on.

Right, apparently you didn't read the entire post.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not sure what your point is. I subjectively believe that the laws of logic and math are universal and objective. Does that mean that they aren't universal and objective because I subjectively grasp them? Or subjectively value them?

The laws of logic and mathematics have been shown to have an objective reality, so you are recognizing their nature. They also do not require "interpretation" in the way that the moral code you extract from the bible requires interpretation.

To quote:

"To say that I am within my 'epistemic rights' to hold to a claim, I am saying that I violate no epistemic responsibilities or obligations in believing in my claim. An epistemic obligation is an intellectual responsibility with respect to the formation of, or holding to, my beliefs."

And they tell me I'm wordy.

This seems to boil down to, "my actions/choices are are consistent with my beliefs." Someone who does not value life will likely have a moral code that permits them to take life. That is perfectly consistent, if that is what you are asking.

But what is there to convince me of? That what you value is somehow more rational or true than what I value?

That there is a benefit to be had from valuing differently than you do. Since each of us value as we do for a variety of reasons, it is possible those reasons will convince someone else. It is also possible it will not. Since your moral code around the LGBTQ community is rooted in your interpreation of the biblical moral code, and this serves as a basis for you because you value the god you believe originated that moral code, my two most obvious avenues to convincing you to change your moral code would be a) to convince you that human dignity should be valued above this "god" you value, or b) to convince you that you have misinterpreted this moral code. Based on previous exchanges, I assess that I have little/no chance of achieving either. Indeed, I suspect there is no argument I can make that will cause you to shift this stance, so "convince" is not an option. That leaves isolate/separate and/or contend to resolve the problem. Neither are designed to convince; instead they are designed to limit the effect of your moral position, which I assess as "immoral."

[element771]

Right, apparently you didn't read the entire post.

I did, I just felt that this was the only thing worth replying to.

j/k

I disagree with the rest but have already stated why.

[seer]

That is probably a good strategy.

I have to admit that I didn't think he would stoop to straight-up fabrication of data / information to support a point that he was attempting to make. Thanks for linking that post. Has he ever explained himself?

No he does not explain himself, he just moves on to a different topic. I don't know if he is being dishonest on purpose or if he has some kind of problem. I either case it is not worth it...

[seer]

The laws of logic and mathematics have been shown to have an objective reality, so you are recognizing their nature. They also do not require "interpretation" in the way that the moral code you extract from the bible requires interpretation.

That is not the point. So you agree that we can subjectively understand universal truths? And I'm not sure what you mean by interpretation? Is every historical fact or reference open to interpretation? Is the New York Times open to interpretation? Everything you say? Words don't have meaning? It is all up for grabs? So when the Bible says that adultery is immoral can I interpret that to mean that adultery is good, healthy and moral?

That there is a benefit to be had from valuing differently than you do. Since each of us value as we do for a variety of reasons, it is possible those reasons will convince someone else. It is also possible it will not. Since your moral code around the LGBTQ community is rooted in your interpreation of the biblical moral code, and this serves as a basis for you because you value the god you believe originated that moral code, my two most obvious avenues to convincing you to change your moral code would be a) to convince you that human dignity should be valued above this "god" you value, or b) to convince you that you have misinterpreted this moral code. Based on previous exchanges, I assess that I have little/no chance of achieving either. Indeed, I suspect there is no argument I can make that will cause you to shift this stance, so "convince" is not an option. That leaves isolate/separate and/or contend to resolve the problem. Neither are designed to convince; instead they are designed to limit the effect of your moral position, which I assess as "immoral."

First Carp, it is not my interpretation of Scripture, it is what the text actually says. And you can not make the claim that your view is more rational or true than mine. So logic and truth are not on your side. It comes down to your opinion. Thin Carp, real thin...

[element771]

No he does not explain himself, he just moves on to a different topic. I don't know if he is being dishonest on purpose or if he has some kind of problem. I either case it is not worth it...

Its funny that he keeps screaming ad hominem.

This brings me to my final point and the third usage of ad hominem. There are situations in which you can attack the person instead of their argument without it being a fallacy. For example, let’s imaging a court room scenario where a key witness has identified the murderer, and the defense responds by providing evidence that the witness is a pathological liar. The defense’s argument is ad hominem because the attack is against the person not the person’s argument, but the attack is not fallacious because there is a serious question about this witness’s credibility. If the witness is truly a pathological liar, then they should not be trusted, and their testimony should be viewed as irrelevant. To be clear, the defense has to actually provide compelling evidence that the witness is a pathological liar in order for this argument to be valid. If they cannot back up that claim, then this argument is both an ad hominen fallacy and an ad hoc fallacy (as is the shill gambit).

[carpedm9587]

That is not the point. So you agree that we can subjectively understand universal truths?

Ultimately, everything we know we know subjectively. It is, after all, us "knowing." That doesn't make the objective of our understanding subjective.

And I'm not sure what you mean by interpretation?

Take your ten commandments. "Thou shalt not kill," in the original Hebrew uses a word that can be translated "kill," "murder," "slay," "break," or "dash to pieces." It is generally translated as "murder' or "kill." Why not "break" or "dash to pieces?" If it is translated as "kill," there is no indication here of a limitation. Does it apply just to humans? All animals? All life? If it is translated to "murder," we further have to define what type of killing constitutes "murder" and what type does not." And that is one simple commandment from your moral code.

Is every historical fact or reference open to interpretation?

A good historian would probably say, "yes." The only exception would be simply statements of fact like, "Hannibal and his army crossed river W at crossing X on date Y at time Z." But as soon as you begin talking about motivations, causes, relationships between events, etc., then interpretation becomes part of the historian's challenge.

Is the New York Times open to interpretation?

Same thing.

Everything you say?

Absolutely.

Words don't have meaning?

It is precisely because words have both denotation, and connotation, and context that everything said requires interpretation to some degree.

It is all up for grabs?

NOt sure what this is asking.

So when the Bible says that adultery is immoral can I interpret that to mean that adultery is good, healthy and moral?

First you have to define what is and is not adultery. The original commandment was specifically interpreted to prohibit an Israelite man from having sex with the wife of another Israelite man. It did not extend to slaves, for example. Sex between an Israelite man and an Israelite woman who was neither betrothed nor married was also not prohibited. Apparently, your "modern" interpretation of this law differs from how it was interpreted originally.

First Carp, it is not my interpretation of Scripture, it is what the text actually says. And you can not make the claim that your view is more rational or true than mine. So logic and truth are not on your side. It comes down to your opinion. Thin Carp, real thin...

"What it actually says" is the specific words used. The meaning of those words is subject to interpretation, the change in those meanings in 2,000+ years needs to be factored in, the difference in meaning between languages needs to be considered, as well as the difference between cultures. You have a black/white way of looking at things Seer. The reality is far more complex, and the entire reason for the discipline of "exegesis."

[seer]

Ultimately, everything we know we know subjectively. It is, after all, us "knowing." That doesn't make the objective of our understanding subjective.

Good.

Take your ten commandments. "Thou shalt not kill," in the original Hebrew uses a word that can be translated "kill," "murder," "slay," "break," or "dash to pieces." It is generally translated as "murder' or "kill." Why not "break" or "dash to pieces?" If it is translated as "kill," there is no indication here of a limitation. Does it apply just to humans? All animals? All life? If it is translated to "murder," we further have to define what type of killing constitutes "murder" and what type does not." And that is one simple commandment from your moral code.

There is a reason why it is translated murder in newer translations, given the body of the Mosaic code. What is allowed and what isn't. And I think you know it is speaking of humans. Unless you never read the Torah through.

A good historian would probably say, "yes." The only exception would be simply statements of fact like, "Hannibal and his army crossed river W at crossing X on date Y at time Z." But as soon as you begin talking about motivations, causes, relationships between events, etc., then interpretation becomes part of the historian's challenge.

That however does not mean that there is not a correct answer.

Absolutely.

So when you claim to be moral relativist I can interpret that to mean that you are not a moral objectivist.

First you have to define what is and is not adultery. The original commandment was specifically interpreted to prohibit an Israelite man from having sex with the wife of another Israelite man. It did not extend to slaves, for example. Sex between an Israelite man and an Israelite woman who was neither betrothed nor married was also not prohibited. Apparently, your "modern" interpretation of this law differs from how it was interpreted originally.

It is sex with the spouse of another person. And no where does the Bible condone sex with a slave, that is not your wife, or any woman who is not your wife. Hebrew men may have did such things, but they were sinners like the rest of us. So yes - it is quite straightforward.

"What it actually says" is the specific words used. The meaning of those words is subject to interpretation, the change in those meanings in 2,000+ years needs to be factored in, the difference in meaning between languages needs to be considered, as well as the difference between cultures. You have a black/white way of looking at things Seer. The reality is far more complex, and the entire reason for the discipline of "exegesis."

Sex with another man's wife is sex with another man's wife -no matter the culture.

[carpedm9587]

Good.

There is a reason why it is translated murder in newer translations, given the body of the Mosaic code. What is allowed and what isn't. And I think you know it is speaking of humans. Unless you never read the Torah through.

So you are basically making my point. "Newer translations" means it has been translated differently at different times. I'm sure each time the translator believed they "had it right." And what I "know" is irrelevant; the fact is it doesn't SAY human, it simply says "murder" or "kill," and there are other translations of that word again. Language is ALWAYS interpreted. That is it's very nature.

That however does not mean that there is not a correct answer.

It does mean that we are always subject to interpretation. The historian makes choices just by deciding what to include exclude from any given history. And many causes/reasons are "best guess," and sometimes the "correct answer" is lost to history

So when you claim to be moral relativist I can interpret that to mean that you are not a moral objectivist.

No one is a moral objectivist. There just are a lot of people who think they are. Then they immediately turn around and engage in subjective morality.

It is sex with the spouse of another person. And no where does the Bible condone sex with a slave, that is not your wife, or any woman who is not your wife. Hebrew men may have did such things, but they were sinners like the rest of us. So yes - it is quite straightforward.

Sex with another man's wife is sex with another man's wife -no matter the culture.

I think you might want to double check your exegesis. Lying with a slave was a common practice in the ANE. Indeed, wives would sometimes give a slave to their husband for sex purposes. Your interpretation is actually reasonably modern, and not in line with how those passages were interpreted in the ANE, or how it governed what could and could not be done.

[shunyadragon]

Its funny that he keeps screaming ad hominem.

Not funny, reality ad hominem by definition. Personal attacks not addressing the subject of the thread are Ad hominem, English lesson for seer and you.

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=ad+hominem+definition&oq=ad+hominem&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.19912j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

ad ho·mi·nem
1.(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

© Copyright Original Source

[element771]

Not funny, reality ad hominem by definition. Personal attacks not addressing the subject of the thread are Ad hominem, English lesson for seer and you.

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=ad+hominem+definition&oq=ad+hominem&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.19912j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

ad ho·mi·nem
1.(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

© Copyright Original Source

Did you make this up too?

[shunyadragon]

Did you make this up too?

No. i do not make up my own English like seer and you.

[Tassman]

Tass, you are still missing the point. Our Founders did not ground rights in the government or the majority. They grounded them in God. Period.

This must be why "God" is not referenced in the Constitution.

America is not a Christian nation. It is not governed by Christian laws. Some of the founding fathers were Christian, many were deists. A few may have even been atheists. Regardless of their personal beliefs, the Founders insisted that every American be free to determine for themselves what they would or would not believe and to do so beyond the influence and control of the government.

And I guess we were pretty violent when we prevented Japan from attacking your country.

It would not have been in the US's best interests to have the Asia/Pacific region under Japanese control. And you forget that Australia has been a staunch ally of the US in every war the US has engaged in including the disasters of Vietnam and Iraq.

[Tassman]

No doubt.

This is really the only point being made. You are not comfortable with it but for many reputable cosmologists multiverse theory is the outcome of developments in several major fields of physics such as quantum physics, cosmological physics and computational physics. All of these seem to lead to some form of a multiverse. Not enough as yet to establish that it exists, but it's seems to be where cosmology is currently at.

So just having empirically verifiable details isn't enough. These empirically verifiable details would necessarily be unique to the multiverse theory. Otherwise, you still don't have any unique evidence for the multiverse over the universe.

See above.

I understand the different starting points BUT if both cannot be empirically verified...there is no functional difference. I am not the only one to see this BTW...this is a major factor in people who push back.

No doubt. But there nevertheless remain many competent cosmologists who don’t see it this way.

This isn't what I mean. This is one piece of the puzzle for the BB...there are tons that can be verified empirically that supports the BB. Multiverse starts out with an idea (more than one universe) that cannot.

It’s more than just “one piece of the puzzle”. Everything that supports BB theory arises from the unknowable Planck Epoch. Presumably this will be true for multiverse theory as well.

1. Inflation still hasn't been shown to be true. It just solves a bunch of problems but is also riddled with problems.

2. Only certain types of inflation lead to multiverses.

I am not dismissing the multiverse theory, I am just not embracing it. It still has a very long way to go before I seriously consider it.

I am not “embracing” multiverse theory either, merely noting that many reputable, mainstream physicists view it as the most plausible explanation.

[seer]

So you are basically making my point. "Newer translations" means it has been translated differently at different times. I'm sure each time the translator believed they "had it right." And what I "know" is irrelevant; the fact is it doesn't SAY human, it simply says "murder" or "kill," and there are other translations of that word again. Language is ALWAYS interpreted. That is it's very nature.

No Carp, see this is your tactic. Attempting to make everything so ambiguous as to not be relevant. It is not. In the context of the Mosaic code there is the lawful taking of life including the death penalty. So the "kill" of the Decalogue can not be a restriction on all taking of life.

No one is a moral objectivist. There just are a lot of people who think they are. Then they immediately turn around and engage in subjective morality.

That was not the point Carp. Which was, do I get to interpret your words in a way they were not intended by you? Of course not. Words have meaning. And if I believe that adultery is an objective moral wrong, and I refuse to practice it because it is an objective moral wrong - how am I engaging in subjective morality?

I think you might want to double check your exegesis. Lying with a slave was a common practice in the ANE. Indeed, wives would sometimes give a slave to their husband for sex purposes. Your interpretation is actually reasonably modern, and not in line with how those passages were interpreted in the ANE, or how it governed what could and could not be done.

Nonsense, the Bible never condones such actions. David committed adultery with Bathsheba, and it was a grievous sin. The Ten Commandments prohibits adultery, and reinforces it by saying that you shall not covet your neighbor's wife. This adultery assume that both parties are married - to other people obviously. Which Christ reinforces in the New Testament.