Original sin

[JimL]

Where did the other universe come from? This is just making up stuff to explain the current universe. It isn't science, it is wishful thinking. There is no evidence of a prior universe.

Obviously, had you comprehended what I said, the other universes would have come from the same place that our universe came from. And you are correct, it isn't science, but it is an extroplation of what we do know of existence in that whatever comes into existence comes from that which already exists, and there is no reason to believe that the birth of our universe is any different in that respect.

It is replacing God. Instead of believing in God, you believe in another eternal universe that created this one. You just replaced the concept of a personal God with an inanimate object and think that is a better explanation. It isn't.

It is a better explanation, because I am not adding something that there is no evidence of. We have evidence of material existence, none of immaterial existence. I can't replace that for which there is no evidence of in the first place.

There was no time until God created it.

Then a being who thinks and acts didn't exist either.

Neither is your garbage. It is imaginary science. A hypothesis as you said. With no evidence.

Well, mine is not direct evidence, it's an extrapolation of natural processes to the birth of the natural universe itself, but WLC's is totally made up, based upon nothing. That would make his hypothesis worse than garbage by your standards.

You still end up with an infinite series of events before the universe is created and you can't have such a thing. That is why I linked you to Craig's paper. read it.

I already know the argument, and disagree. Unless you want to argue that an eternal and infinite god wouldn't be capable of creating an infinite series of events as well.

Are you claiming that knowing how something will function means it exists before it is made? Are you stupid?

I am arguing that, yes, because if the knowledge, i.e if the laws of how a thing will function is eternal, then the thing itself is eternal, since a law, as you admitted, is naught but discriptive of the existing thing itself.

[Sparko]

Obviously, had you comprehended what I said, the other universes would have come from the same place that our universe came from. And you are correct, it isn't science, but it is an extroplation of what we do know of existence in that whatever comes into existence comes from that which already exists, and there is no reason to believe that the birth of our universe is any different in that respect.

in other words a made up idea to explain our universe, exactly what you claim theists are doing.

It is a better explanation, because I am not adding something that there is no evidence of.

That is exactly what you are doing. You have no evidence of a previous universe. Or of a metaverse.

We have evidence of material existence, none of immaterial existence. I can't replace that for which there is no evidence of in the first place.

Ideas are immaterial. Like your idea that there was a previous universe that pooped out this one.

Then a being who thinks and acts didn't exist either.

I am sure that gives you comfort to believe.

Well, mine is not direct evidence, it's an extrapolation of natural processes to the birth of the natural universe itself, but WLC's is totally made up, based upon nothing. That would make his hypothesis worse than garbage by your standards.

I already know the argument, and disagree. Unless you want to argue that an eternal and infinite god wouldn't be capable of creating an infinite series of events as well.

Our view is backed up by revelation by God himself. And Jesus coming to us. Your's is just made up out of whole cloth.

I am arguing that, yes, because if the knowledge, i.e if the laws of how a thing will function is eternal, then the thing itself is eternal, since a law, as you admitted, is naught but discriptive of the existing thing itself.

If the law describes how something functions, then if the thing doesn't exist, the law can't exist.

So you think if God decides to great particles which exhibit the electro-magnetic force, that the electromagnetic force exists before he created the particles? That's moronic.

I think I am done here. Your ignorance is not worth debating. It would be like me arguing with someone who insists that the sun is a lightbulb.

[Same Hakeem]

If any human legal court NEVER accepts the death of an innocent person in place of the criminal, then the concept of original sin makes no sense at all.

[Jim B.]

If any human legal court NEVER accepts the death of an innocent person in place of the criminal, then the concept of original sin makes no sense at all.

If I understand your point, I don't accept the idea of original sin literally but as a metaphor for what every person goes through in terms of innocence, temptation, and then knowingly doing what they know is the wrong thing to do. The possibility of doing wrong (moral responsibility) entails the all but certain outcome that one will consciously do wrong at some point in his or her life.

[siam]

Original sin: The tendency to evil supposedly innate in all human beings, held to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall.

Here I'm not focusing on the why of original sin, how we got here, but the fact of original sin (or evil). That we all do evil. And it's not that we merely do evil by mistake, but that we do wrong even when we agree with ourselves that the act is wrong. We, as humans, have all experienced this: I know A is wrong, I agree that A is wrong, yet I do it anyway. The morally rational is superseded or rejected - and we choose the wrong. But why, what is driving these bad choices, if we agree and know A is wrong, what compels us to go against our best moral sense? If we say selfishness or lust then the question becomes - how/why do these so often rise to ascendancy? What makes us forgo the rational in these moral situations?

In general what makes us err or make "bad" choices is an excess of "desire" such as greed. hate, envy, tribalism....etc. But desire can also help us make good choices...such as sharing, love, tolerance, wholistic/unity.....

Our actions can take many forms....
to intentionally harm
to intentionally help but create accidental harm
to act accidentally and create unintentional harm

out of these...there are situations where human beings intentionally harm using "reason" as justification.....for example, the U.S. tortured people in order to "get information". Democracies that go to war (because democracies have a choice),
to incarcerate people who have committed a crime in punitive justice systems....
then there are other "reasons" such as....opium...a drug used for medicinal purposes gets abused and causes harm...today it is making news as the fentanayl/opioid epidemic...or the use of plastics that both helped and harmed.
Then there are things that "make sense" but cause unintentional harm such as the design and use of propellers which end up harming marine life and birds....

value definitions of moral/immoral, good/bad, rational/emotional are often situation-dependent. To look at human actions...or to interpret human intentions...as a binary is unrealistic and reductionist....?.....

[Jim B.]

In general what makes us err or make "bad" choices is an excess of "desire" such as greed. hate, envy, tribalism....etc. But desire can also help us make good choices...such as sharing, love, tolerance, wholistic/unity.....

Our actions can take many forms....
to intentionally harm
to intentionally help but create accidental harm
to act accidentally and create unintentional harm

out of these...there are situations where human beings intentionally harm using "reason" as justification.....for example, the U.S. tortured people in order to "get information". Democracies that go to war (because democracies have a choice),
to incarcerate people who have committed a crime in punitive justice systems....
then there are other "reasons" such as....opium...a drug used for medicinal purposes gets abused and causes harm...today it is making news as the fentanayl/opioid epidemic...or the use of plastics that both helped and harmed.
Then there are things that "make sense" but cause unintentional harm such as the design and use of propellers which end up harming marine life and birds....

value definitions of moral/immoral, good/bad, rational/emotional are often situation-dependent. To look at human actions...or to interpret human intentions...as a binary is unrealistic and reductionist....?.....

I agree with you that morality is largely context-dependent and it's not helpful to impose a reductionist, binary system upon it. That's why I tend to be a moral objectivist and not a moral absolutist. Generally, the intentions of the actor are much more important to evaluating the moral status of an action than the mere effects of the action which, as you point out, can be accidental. That being said, I do consider myself more of a deontologist than a consequentialist, fwiw....

[siam]

I agree with you that morality is largely context-dependent and it's not helpful to impose a reductionist, binary system upon it. That's why I tend to be a moral objectivist and not a moral absolutist. Generally, the intentions of the actor are much more important to evaluating the moral status of an action than the mere effects of the action which, as you point out, can be accidental. That being said, I do consider myself more of a deontologist than a consequentialist, fwiw....

I am uncomfortable with ethico-moral discussions based on labels such as objectivist/absolutist, deontologist/consequentialist...etc because it seems that these definitions are too theoretical and do not capture our human reality. The complexity of the interactions between intent+action+consequence and circumstances, means that an "iac" cannot be neatly categorized/labeled. I agree that the intent of an actor should be a major consideration---however, intentions are mostly in the realm of the "unseen"---that is, these are in the mind/heart and unless articulated, cannot be known.
Also...should moral consideration extend to post-"iac"...? as in, responsibility for the consequences regardless of intent?
for example---
The manager of a company gives a promotion to an employee because of his hardwork and performance---however, this employee had been under mental stress due to work pressure and work overload and dies soon after the promotion.
(Karoshi---(Japanese)=occupational sudden death due to overwork.)

The intent in the above scenario can be assumed as "good" since generally---to be promoted is considered a reward and rewards are good. Nevertheless, the consequence is that a life has been lost and the value of the loss far outweighs the good intentions of the action. Would morality dictate some form of redeeming action that can compensate for the disparity?.....if so,...by whom?

[Jim B.]

I am uncomfortable with ethico-moral discussions based on labels such as objectivist/absolutist, deontologist/consequentialist...etc because it seems that these definitions are too theoretical and do not capture our human reality. The complexity of the interactions between intent+action+consequence and circumstances, means that an "iac" cannot be neatly categorized/labeled. I agree that the intent of an actor should be a major consideration---however, intentions are mostly in the realm of the "unseen"---that is, these are in the mind/heart and unless articulated, cannot be known.
Also...should moral consideration extend to post-"iac"...? as in, responsibility for the consequences regardless of intent?
for example---
The manager of a company gives a promotion to an employee because of his hardwork and performance---however, this employee had been under mental stress due to work pressure and work overload and dies soon after the promotion.
(Karoshi---(Japanese)=occupational sudden death due to overwork.)

The intent in the above scenario can be assumed as "good" since generally---to be promoted is considered a reward and rewards are good. Nevertheless, the consequence is that a life has been lost and the value of the loss far outweighs the good intentions of the action. Would morality dictate some form of redeeming action that can compensate for the disparity?.....if so,...by whom?

Metaethics has nothing to do with limiting the complexity or nuance of 'our human reality' anymore than physics limits the complexity and nuance of the physical world. There are many metaethical positions: some are variations on consequentialism where it's all but indistinguishable from deontology. But unfortunately, in philosophy, sometimes actual decisions must be made (or deferred ) and positions taken. It's too easy just to say that every matter in question is beyond any possible "category" or "label," and that no decision need ever be made. It's comfortable to never take a stand, because one can thereby never be wrong.

Of course intentions are not publicly observable, but so what? Neither are a lot of things. Just because we cannot publicly verify something doesn't mean it's not real. My headache isn't verifiable to you in the same way that today is Thursday is, but headaches are still real.

If I'm the manager of the company, and I should have known about my employee's condition, then I'd be at least partly responsible for his death. It's generally assumed that there are criteria that can be reasonably applied to situations for the assignment of responsibility/culpability, although there are occasionally moral ambiguities.

[siam]

Metaethics has nothing to do with limiting the complexity or nuance of 'our human reality' anymore than physics limits the complexity and nuance of the physical world. There are many metaethical positions: some are variations on consequentialism where it's all but indistinguishable from deontology. But unfortunately, in philosophy, sometimes actual decisions must be made (or deferred ) and positions taken. It's too easy just to say that every matter in question is beyond any possible "category" or "label," and that no decision need ever be made. It's comfortable to never take a stand, because one can thereby never be wrong.

Of course intentions are not publicly observable, but so what? Neither are a lot of things. Just because we cannot publicly verify something doesn't mean it's not real. My headache isn't verifiable to you in the same way that today is Thursday is, but headaches are still real.

If I'm the manager of the company, and I should have known about my employee's condition, then I'd be at least partly responsible for his death. It's generally assumed that there are criteria that can be reasonably applied to situations for the assignment of responsibility/culpability, although there are occasionally moral ambiguities.

Metaethics derived from a world-view of original sin and its consequent position of human nature (as inherently evil) would not only be unrealistic...but also impractical. ---the history of the inquisitions shows it.
According to the premise of original sin---all human beings---except baptized Christians---retain their evil nature.....Christian baptism washes it away. Therefore the non-Christian humanity cannot be presumed innocent until proven guilty...but must be presumed guilty until proven innocent.....right? Then...."sin" is not only inherited, but also transferable....this argument is used to explain how the crucifixion (sacrifice) washed away the sin of all humanity---that were "Christian"...(?)
So...once an action has been taken that is judged unethical/immoral---one "sacrifices" (animal/man) and that takes care of that...!...

Original sin is a nice little theory that fills in the holes of the Christian narrative but is completely useless in explaining or analyzing the reality of human nature, defining justice, or regulating ethics/morality.

Metaethical categories---I am not against the analysis of human behavior and values....all I am saying is that it needs to be pragmatic rather than theoretical. Today in academia, classical economic theories are under attack because these economic models, presumptions and theories were based on idealized and unrealistic perspectives. They neither reflect reality nor promote solutions.....

Company manager scenario----Since human beings cannot know intentions, the benefit of doubt is applied and persons are judged innocent until proven guilty---therefore, in this case it is assumed the promotion was a "reward". But it could have been otherwise---the manager may have been pressured to urgently fill in a recently vacated position and unthinkingly assigned the first person that came to mind, or the manager may have intended to force a potential rival into resigning from his position by assigning him into a position not right for his capabilities...
...fortunately (with perhaps the exception of overzealous Christians?) most people do not assume ill-intent as their starting premise...

Then there is the ethics regarding the aftermath of the actions---regardless of intent (good/ill) a life was lost---In the Original Sin world-view, one would make a "sacrifice" ---probably kill a goat/sheep? and that would deal with the problem...right?

Assignment of culpability/responsibility---Yes that is a good point. In some situations, culpability/responsibility is not simply individual but also collective to some degree....in other words, The corporate culture also needs a systemic change.

With so many considerations in the mix---how are we to analyze metaethcis?---Perhaps one might consider Balance (instead of labels) as the underlying tool? The balance between rights and responsibilities for example, or the balancing of various "meta-values" such as liberty, life, property, knowledge....etc..?

[Jim B.]

Metaethics derived from a world-view of original sin and its consequent position of human nature (as inherently evil) would not only be unrealistic...but also impractical. ---the history of the inquisitions shows it.
According to the premise of original sin---all human beings---except baptized Christians---retain their evil nature.....Christian baptism washes it away. Therefore the non-Christian humanity cannot be presumed innocent until proven guilty...but must be presumed guilty until proven innocent.....right? Then...."sin" is not only inherited, but also transferable....this argument is used to explain how the crucifixion (sacrifice) washed away the sin of all humanity---that were "Christian"...(?)
So...once an action has been taken that is judged unethical/immoral---one "sacrifices" (animal/man) and that takes care of that...!...

Perhaps if you had read my previous post, you might have noted that I also don't believe in "original sin"! I read the original sin story as an "originary myth" for free will and accountability. So all of you inveighing against the Christian doctrine of original sin is actually misdirected, and is also rather parochial: you're taking one particular type of Christian belief and assuming it is ALL of Chrisitian doctrine. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself a bit more with the richness and variety of the tradition before passing judgment.

Metaethical categories---I am not against the analysis of human behavior and values....all I am saying is that it needs to be pragmatic rather than theoretical. Today in academia, classical economic theories are under attack because these economic models, presumptions and theories were based on idealized and unrealistic perspectives. They neither reflect reality nor promote solutions.....

Please tell me how "pragmatic" and "theoretical" are necessarily mutually exclusive? Every practical application requires theoretical underpinning. Every kind of technology, for instance, requires theoretical scientific understanding coordinated with observation, experiment and application. So your divorcing the two activities from each other seems incoherent.

Company manager scenario----Since human beings cannot know intentions, the benefit of doubt is applied and persons are judged innocent until proven guilty---therefore, in this case it is assumed the promotion was a "reward". But it could have been otherwise---the manager may have been pressured to urgently fill in a recently vacated position and unthinkingly assigned the first person that came to mind, or the manager may have intended to force a potential rival into resigning from his position by assigning him into a position not right for his capabilities...
...fortunately (with perhaps the exception of overzealous Christians?) most people do not assume ill-intent as their starting premise...

I agree that people ought to be judged innocent until proved guilty. As far as assuming ill-intent, you're confusing several things: first, Christians who hold to a literalist notion of Original Sin would still not believe that blame is to be assigned to people in every individual case, but that the circumstances of each case would have to be weighed individually. Otherwise, Christians with such a belief could not serve on juries, for instance. Second, as I said above, not all Christians are literalists. It's a much richer, more sophisticated tradition than I think you're giving it credit for being.

If we can never know intent, then we could never know any of the things you mention about the manager's state of mind. Of course we can know intent to the extent that we can know our own state of mind and can know others' states of mind. As far as others' mental states, our knowledge isn't perfect, but it's not like we have no knowledge at all. Legal theory has a concept of mens rea, which triers of fact can come to be reasonably confident about. Not perfect, but not groping in the dark either, like most human knowledge.

Then there is the ethics regarding the aftermath of the actions---regardless of intent (good/ill) a life was lost---In the Original Sin world-view, one would make a "sacrifice" ---probably kill a goat/sheep? and that would deal with the problem...right?

That's one interpretation of the Genesis story. There are others.

Assignment of culpability/responsibility---Yes that is a good point. In some situations, culpability/responsibility is not simply individual but also collective to some degree....in other words, The corporate culture also needs a systemic change.

With so many considerations in the mix---how are we to analyze metaethcis?---Perhaps one might consider Balance (instead of labels) as the underlying tool? The balance between rights and responsibilities for example, or the balancing of various "meta-values" such as liberty, life, property, knowledge....etc..?

Corporate or collective responsibility is a good point but has no bearing on meta-ethics. Neither do any of your other points. I think you're letting yourself get confused by different kinds of things. There are many factors in the mix but complexity is not really the point meta-ethically. The complexity lies on a different logical level of description. What is the wrong or right-making feature of an action? Sometimes philosophy requires that a decision be made.