Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An Infinite Past?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    It is a given that human scientific knowledge changes over time, therefore at no point in time could we know anything in the absolute sense. This has been true of most human knowledge changing over time. Many 'facts' do not change, but 'facts' remain only a small part of human knowledge.
    Good so you agree that we don't know anything in the absolute sense, including whether Methodological Naturalism is a valid tool for investigation.


    That is actually the definition of Theistic Evolution. It is a natural process guided by God.
    But I am saying more, that nature without the supernatural intervention of God, could not (or likely could not) accomplish the job. Therefore your Methodological Naturalism would be insufficient for discovering the truth of the matter.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      Good so you agree that we don't know anything in the absolute sense, including whether Methodological Naturalism is a valid tool for investigation.
      Not being a tool for absolute knowledge does not invalidate Methodological Naturalism as a tool for investigation. In fact there are no human investigation tools that result in absolute knowledge.

      But I am saying more, that nature without the supernatural intervention of God, could not (or likely could not) accomplish the job. Therefore your Methodological Naturalism would be insufficient for discovering the truth of the matter.
      From the human perspective the absolute knowledge of anything including the nature of God and the supernatural intervention of God nor the truth of the matter of Theism.

      I clearly acknowledge that absolute knowledge exists with God, but . . .

      What knowledge of any form from the human perspective could be considered absolute knowledge?
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Not being a tool for absolute knowledge does not invalidate Methodological Naturalism as a tool for investigation. In fact there are no human investigation tools that result in absolute knowledge.
        It would invalidate Methodological Naturalism as a model for discovering truth. If truth is truth it is absolute by definition.



        From the human perspective the absolute knowledge of anything including the nature of God and the supernatural intervention of God nor the truth of the matter of Theism.
        And that uncertainty would apply to the theory of evolution as we know it.

        I clearly acknowledge that absolute knowledge exists with God, but . . .

        What knowledge of any form from the human perspective could be considered absolute knowledge?
        We could know absolute truth (or truths) if God communicated those facts to us. For instance, God as communicated to mankind that He exists - that is an absolute truth.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          It would invalidate Methodological Naturalism as a model for discovering truth. If truth is truth it is absolute by definition.
          You may define truth as absolute truth by definition, but that would not equate to the reality of human knowledge. The problem is the claim of absolute truth as the nature of God and Revelation among theist religions. From the human perspective we have to deal with claims of absolute knowledge or truth, and not something tangible that can be widely agreed to among diverse beliefs.




          And that uncertainty would apply to the theory of evolution as we know it.
          It would apply to most human knowledge that is practical in human terms. The discussion is the nature of human knowledge concerning the nature of our physical existence, and this could not be equated with absolute truth and knowledge, and theistic claims. We fly jet airplanes with the confidence beyond a reasonable doubt that our scientific knowledge is consistent and accurate, not discounting the possibility of an accident.

          We could know absolute truth (or truths) if God communicated those facts to us. For instance, God as communicated to mankind that He exists - that is an absolute truth.
          The existence of God is an absolute truth for those that believe. This does not answer the question I proposed.

          I clearly acknowledge that absolute knowledge exists with God, but . . .

          What knowledge of any form from the human perspective could be considered absolute knowledge?
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-18-2014, 03:29 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            Of course it is an argument Jim. If there is no objective moral law then ethics are clearly reduced to absurdity where both A and not A are equally correct. In some cultures female genital mutilation is considered good and necessary, in other cultures it is outlawed. The same behavior is both accepted and not accepted. A and not A are both culturally correct. That is absurd James.
            You only call that an absurdity because you believe that morality is objective. Can you see what I mean? Its a circular argument seer. In other words your argument is that because you believe "that morals are objective, then therefore if they are not objective they are absurd." Now explain if you can why subjective morals in themselves, as adopted by a society and made law, are absurd?




            Ok, read it when you can, I am not misinterpreting him.
            OK.



            I'm not sure what you mean by "literal reading." And yes I believe we were created by God, if that is your question.
            What I mean is do you believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis wherein God created the first humans and the animals some 6 thousand years ago, or do you believe that God created life through the process known as abiogednesis, spontaneous generation from inanimate matter, billions of years ago as the study of evolution suggests.
            Last edited by JimL; 09-18-2014, 09:45 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              I am tired of your false accusations Tass, unless you prove where I misquoted anyone, or apologize, I will put you on ignore. Then you will not have the pleasure of my company going forward - you have until tomorrow.
              I did NOT accuse you of “misquoting” anyone; can’t you read plain English?

              I said that you misunderstood Vilenkin by erroneously insisting that his use of the word “beginning”, as used in the BGV Theorem, equates to an “absolute beginning” as per the Christian doctrine of Creatio ex Nihilo. But an “absolute beginning” has NOT been argued by Vilenkin at all. Quite the reverse! He is arguing for a natural, scientific explanation of what occurred at the boundary condition; this is the direct opposite of what you're claiming he means. In physics "beginnings" always arise from pre-existing, very possibly eternal conditions. There is no good reason at this stage to assume that absolute beginning even exists.

              Also, re absolute morality, I’m still waiting for you to explain what absolute moral laws you have in mind. Despite many requests in previous discussions you have never been able to say what you think they might be. In fact the evidence indicates that morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation, i.e. a consequence of evolution and naturally built into us. Such naturally selected genetic predispositions have been beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. Our community values and legal codes are based on them.
              Last edited by Tassman; 09-19-2014, 04:39 AM.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                I did NOT accuse you of “misquoting” anyone; can’t you read plain English?

                I said that you misunderstood Vilenkin by erroneously insisting that his use of the word “beginning”, as used in the BGV Theorem, equates to an “absolute beginning” as per the Christian doctrine of Creatio ex Nihilo. But an “absolute beginning” has NOT been argued by Vilenkin at all. Quite the reverse! He is arguing for a natural, scientific explanation of what occurred at the boundary condition; this is the direct opposite of what you're claiming he means. In physics "beginnings" always arise from pre-existing, very possibly eternal conditions. There is no good reason at this stage to assume that absolute beginning even exists.
                I said nothing about "absolute beginning" - what I said is that his theory has a beginning with no known cause. I also said:

                Of course an atheist in science will assume that some other physical force caused, lets say, the multiverse to begin, but with out credible evidence all you are left with is a beginning.

                Of course Vilenkin "wants" there to be a previous cause, just as atheists "want" there to be a prior physical cause for this universe. So when it comes to the multiverse or this universe you may believe anything you like, but the facts are you have no evidence for these prior causes.

                Also, re absolute morality, I’m still waiting for you to explain what absolute moral laws you have in mind. Despite many requests in previous discussions you have never been able to say what you think they might be. In fact the evidence indicates that morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation, i.e. a consequence of evolution and naturally built into us. Such naturally selected genetic predispositions have been beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. Our community values and legal codes are based on them.
                Again, if you are correct then you have reduce morality to complete absurdity. Let me quote myself:

                If there is no objective moral law then ethics are clearly reduced to absurdity where both A and not A are equally correct. In some cultures female genital mutilation is considered good and necessary, in other cultures it is outlawed. The same behavior is both accepted and not accepted. A and not A are both culturally correct.


                The point Tass, that even if we don't always understand or correctly articulate the laws of logic they are still universal. The same with ethics, even if we don't always understand or correctly articulate moral law that does not mean that it is not universal. If not you reduce all moral thought to absurdity.


                BTW Tass, this is your last chance to apologize. If not I will put you on ignore.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  You only call that an absurdity because you believe that morality is objective. Can you see what I mean? Its a circular argument seer. In other words your argument is that because you believe "that morals are objective, then therefore if they are not objective they are absurd." Now explain if you can why subjective morals in themselves, as adopted by a society and made law, are absurd?
                  No Jim, I clearly showed why all moral reasoning becomes absurd if you are correct. It was not in the least circular, again:

                  If there is no objective moral law then ethics are clearly reduced to absurdity where both A and not A are equally correct. In some cultures female genital mutilation is considered good and necessary, in other cultures it is outlawed. The same behavior is both accepted and not accepted. A and not A are both culturally correct.

                  Female genital mutilation is both good and not good. A and not A are equally correct. That is the very basis of absurdity.


                  What I mean is do you believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis wherein God created the first humans and the animals some 6 thousand years ago, or do you believe that God created life through the process known as abiogednesis, spontaneous generation from inanimate matter, billions of years ago as the study of evolution suggests.
                  To be honest, I don't know. I tend to an old earth view with man as a special creation relatively recently, 6-12 thousand years ago. What I don't believe is that unaided Natural Selection and Random Mutations created what we see today.

                  Let me give you and example. The human eye is quite complex, with a number of controlling genes that all interact together. So over time not only do you need RMs to create these various interlocking parts that make up the eye, you then need RMs to create the connection to the brain (the optic nerve which is controlled by a different set of genes). Then not only that, now you need corresponding changes in the central nervous system (the brain controlled by another different set of genes) that can process the ever increasing information for an ever more complex eye. Now multiply that with the sense of smell, taste, and hearing and all the corresponding, interlocking changes that would be needed. I have no reason to assume that all this happened or could happen "naturally."
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Again, if you are correct then you have reduce morality to complete absurdity. Let me quote myself:

                    The point Tass, that even if we don't always understand or correctly articulate the laws of logic they are still universal. The same with ethics, even if we don't always understand or correctly articulate moral law that does not mean that it is not universal. If not you reduce all moral thought to absurdity.
                    The problem with this reasoning concerning human 'ethics and morality' is flawed. First, you have failed to define what is 'objective morality' as a consistent 'objective' human ethics and morality. Still waiting . . .

                    If there is no objective moral law then ethics are clearly reduced to absurdity where both A and not A are equally correct. In some cultures female genital mutilation is considered good and necessary, in other cultures it is outlawed. The same behavior is both accepted and not accepted. A and not A are both culturally correct.
                    What about male genital mutilation that is practiced in Jewish and Western cultures. Given different cultures where the behavior is accepted in one and not accepted in another. Are both culturally or morally correct from an 'objectively moral' perspective? Or is 'What is good for the goose is good for the gander?'

                    The biggest problem is that we do not have a comparison of a morals and ethics where God does not exist, and one where God exists to make a comparison of an 'objective morality with God and a 'subjective morality' without God. What we have is consistent systems of morality and ethics in all successful cultures that evolve and change over time on basic issues such as 'the prohibition of wrongful death,' and wrongful theft of property,' are forbidden. The problem is compounded with the fact that morality changes over time, even in Christian cultures with clear inconsistencies. Again, 'Define the objective morality that all humans must follow? Still waiting . . .
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-19-2014, 07:58 AM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      The problem with this reasoning concerning human 'ethics and morality' is flawed. First, you have failed to define what is 'objective morality' as a consistent 'objective' human ethics and morality. Still waiting . . .
                      Nonsense, so if our understanding of the laws of logic is flawed, in any point, does it follow that the laws of logic are not universal.



                      What about male genital mutilation that is practiced in Jewish and Western cultures. Given different cultures where the behavior is accepted in one and not accepted in another. Are both culturally or morally correct from an 'objectively moral' perspective? Or is 'What is good for the goose is good for the gander?'

                      The biggest problem is that we do not have a comparison of a morals and ethics where God does not exist, and one where God exists to make a comparison of an 'objective morality with God and a 'subjective morality' without God. What we have is consistent systems of morality and ethics in all successful cultures that evolve and change over time on basic issues such as 'the prohibition of wrongful death,' and wrongful theft of property,' are forbidden. The problem is compounded with the fact that morality changes over time, even in Christian cultures with clear inconsistencies. Again, 'Define the objective morality that all humans must follow? Still waiting . . .
                      This changes nothing, all you are doing is proving that all ethical reasoning is absurd.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Nonsense, so if our understanding of the laws of logic is flawed, in any point, does it follow that the laws of logic are not universal.
                        By the evidence Laws of Logic are a human construct that evolved over time, and not universal, because like morals and ethics they share common foundations in human reasoning, and vary over time in different cultures. The above did not answer the question.

                        The problem with this reasoning concerning human 'ethics and morality' is flawed. First, you have failed to define what is 'objective morality' as a consistent 'objective' human ethics and morality. Still waiting . . .
                        This changes nothing, all you are doing is proving that all ethical reasoning is absurd.
                        Still waiting . . .

                        What about male genital mutilation that is practiced in Jewish and Western cultures. Given different cultures where the behavior is accepted in one and not accepted in another. Are both culturally or morally correct from an 'objectively moral' perspective? Or is 'What is good for the goose is good for the gander?'

                        The biggest problem is that we do not have a comparison of a morals and ethics where God does not exist, and one where God exists to make a comparison of an 'objective morality with God and a 'subjective morality' without God. What we have is consistent systems of morality and ethics in all successful cultures that evolve and change over time on basic issues such as 'the prohibition of wrongful death,' and wrongful theft of property,' are forbidden. The problem is compounded with the fact that morality changes over time, even in Christian cultures with clear inconsistencies. Again, 'Define the objective morality that all humans must follow? Still waiting . . .

                        The lack of a consistent definition for 'objective morality' makes it absurd. Still waiting . . .
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-19-2014, 12:34 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          By the evidence Laws of Logic are a human construct that evolved over time, and not universal, because like morals and ethics they share common foundations, and vary over time in different cultures. The above did not answer the question.
                          I did answer the question but you are too dense to see it. And you here claiming Shuny that the laws of logic are not objective and universal? But subjective and relative?

                          What about male genital mutilation that is practiced in Jewish and Western cultures. Given different cultures where the behavior is accepted in one and not accepted in another. Are both culturally or morally correct from an 'objectively moral' perspective? Or is 'What is good for the goose is good for the gander?'
                          Do you know the difference between ontology and epistemology? So stop being your usual idiot self...
                          Last edited by seer; 09-19-2014, 10:47 AM.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            I did answer the question but you are too dense to see it. And you here claiming Shuny that the laws of logic are not objective and universal? But subjective and relative?
                            Neither, The Laws of Logic, and ethics and morality vary in different cultures and over time vary, and are neither objective nor subjective. They may reflect objective and subjective attributes.

                            The Laws of God may be considered objective for those that believe, but morality and ethics are human attributes of our societies and cultures that evolves and changes over time.

                            Do you know the difference between ontology and epistemology? So stop being your usual idiot self...
                            I do know the difference and use of ontology and epistemology. This response does not answer the question.

                            Again, 'Define the objective morality that all humans must follow? Still waiting . . .
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Neither, The Laws of Logic, and ethics and morality vary in different cultures and over time vary, and are neither objective nor subjective. They may reflect objective and subjective attributes
                              That in itself is absurd Shuny. Either the laws of logic are universal and objective or they are not. You are not making any sense.

                              The Laws of God may be considered objective for those that believe, but morality and ethics are human attributes of our societies and cultures that evolves and changes over time.
                              Again, this makes no sense, if the law of God exists then it is objective and universal no matter who believes or doesn't believe it. The color red doesn't cease to exist because some men are born blind.


                              I do know the difference and use of ontology and epistemology. This response does not answer the question.

                              Again, 'Define the objective morality that all humans must follow? Still waiting . . .
                              No Shuny, you don't understand the argument. Even if no one can articulate the specific laws (epistemology) that doesn't mean that objective moral law does not exist (ontology).
                              Last edited by seer; 09-19-2014, 01:33 PM.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                That in itself is absurd Shuny. Either the laws of logic are universal and objective or they are not. You are not making any sense.
                                Show me a definition from an academic source that indicates that the Laws of Logic are objective and universal.

                                Again, this makes no sense, if the law of God exists then it is objective and universal no matter who believes or doesn't believe it. The color red doesn't cease to exist because some men are born blind.
                                The color red is not an issue here, morality and ethics is. You cannot use the same measure for all things.

                                I believe God exists, and yes from God's perspective God is universal and objective, but human morality is too variable and changes over time too be specifically objective.

                                No Shuny, you don't understand the argument. Even if no one can articulate the specific laws (epistemology) that doesn't mean that objective moral law does not exist (ontology).
                                I do not know whether 'objective morality' exists or not, but until it is objectively defined, I cannot give any credibility to the claim that 'objective morality' exists.
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-19-2014, 05:09 PM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                505 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X