An Infinite Past?

[shunyadragon]

Again Jim, in the broad view of human ethics female genital mutilation can be considered good and necessary, or wrong and forbidden. Two completely opposite results. How is this not absurd? It is both A and not A. And this is not about epistemology, how we know what is right or not, but about ontology, what is the nature of moral law. Is it objective, or relative - if it is the latter then it is absurd - where both A and not A are equally correct.

What specifically is 'absurd' about differences between cultures? What does your 'objective morality' have to say about this apparent contradiction. Please include an explanation of the problem of the 'absurdity' of male genital mutilation in terms of 'objective morality that would not be 'absurd.'

[shunyadragon]

Waiting for what?

Read the posts, you said that Vilenkin used the definition of beginning like everybody else uses. The most common definition used is that beginnings begin from something. The alternative is the philosophical/theological absolute nothing as in Creation ex Nihilo.

Which is it seer?

[seer]

Well this is a problem, considering the fact that you 'do not care.' You need to justify your claim that ALL the Laws of Logic are universal and objective. You as an authority on this issue is highly questionable. It is very reasonable to request an academic source to back up your argument.

The problem remains that you need references besides 'because I say so,' and of course, a definition of 'objective morality' that is acceptable in normal human communication in the English language.

Really Shuny, what is wrong with you? I'm asking YOU - are the laws of logic objective and universal or subjective and relative.

The application of the Law of Non-contradiction to Nature of the objective physical evidence as applied to Metaphysical Naturalism, and Math, is objective and universal, but when applied to metaphysical subjective arguments it is dependent on the assumptions of the argument.

What are you saying? The laws of logic and math are objective and universal or not. I don't care how they are rightly or wrongly applied. That is NOT what I'm asking.

Your hedging seer, something as 'moral in nature' does not remotely apply to a claim of 'objective morality.' Check your definitions for morality in any source, and you will find that morality refers to the standards of behavior of groups, societies and individuals. There is no mention of 'objective morality' in any of these definitions.

And where does your definition speak of the law of God? You said Katab-i-aqdas 72 was a law of God. Is that not a moral command? Does it not exist objectively (i.e. in the mind of God)? Does it not apply to how humans should teat fellow humans?

[seer]

Read the posts, you said that Vilenkin used the definition of beginning like everybody else uses. The most common definition used is that beginnings begin from something. The alternative is the philosophical/theological absolute nothing as in Creation ex Nihilo.

Which is it seer?

Of course he did, show me anywhere that he meant it any other way. Please give me the link. But I didn't say he therefore believed in Creation ex Nihilo, though he does say that the universal came about "literally from nothing." Which I linked. And I made it clear that as an atheist of course Vilenkin would assume a previous physical cause. The problem is that there is no actual evidence to back up that assumption. So with his theory we have a beginning with no know cause - period, end of story.

[seer]

What specifically is 'absurd' about differences between cultures? What does your 'objective morality' have to say about this apparent contradiction. Please include an explanation of the problem of the 'absurdity' of male genital mutilation in terms of 'objective morality that would not be 'absurd.'

Really Shuny - are you mental? Are you really equating circumcision with female genital mutilation where the woman actually looses sexual function/desire when the clitoris is removed? Are you really this much of a idiot?

[JimL]

Really Shuny, what is wrong with you? I'm asking YOU - are the laws of logic objective and universal or subjective and relative.



What are you saying? The laws of logic and math are objective and universal or not. I don't care how they are rightly or wrongly applied. That is NOT what I'm asking.




And where does your definition speak of the law of God? You said Katab-i-aqdas 72 was a law of God. Is that not a moral command? Does it not exist objectively (i.e. in the mind of God)? Does it not apply to how humans should teat fellow humans?

The laws of logic are not laws in the same sense as you are equating them with morals seer. Is it a sin not to follow them? No. So they are not laws in that sense, so if you want to equate the laws of logic with moral law then breaking moral law is not a sin in the ultimate sense either.

[JimL]

No Jim I am taking your worldview on face value. It is that view that reduces ethics to absurdity.

Then please answer the hypothetical. If there is no objective moral law, would it be absurd for society to subjectively adopt moral laws?

Again Jim, in the broad view of human ethics female genital mutilation can be considered good and necessary, or wrong and forbidden. Two completely opposite results. How is this not absurd? It is both A and not A. And this is not about epistemology, how we know what is right or not, but about ontology, what is the nature of moral law. Is it objective, or relative - if it is the latter then it is absurd - where both A and not A are equally correct.

The point is that they are not objective in the ultimate sense. What you want is ultimate justice which is why you keep pushing for an ultimate objectivity of moral law. You could make an argument that morals are objective in the sense that right and wrong is that which is in our own best interests as a society of man, but you have no evidence for the notion that morality is ultimately and authoritatively objective.

[seer]

The laws of logic are not laws in the same sense as you are equating them with morals seer. Is it a sin not to follow them? No. So they are not laws in that sense, so if you want to equate the laws of logic with moral law then breaking moral law is not a sin in the ultimate sense either.

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

[shunyadragon]

Really Shuny, what is wrong with you? I'm asking YOU - are the laws of logic objective and universal or subjective and relative.

Neither, the Laws of Logic are reasoning tools that may be used in debates, arguments, and the basis of the philosophy of science, and Math in the objective use, and the metaphysical in the subjective use of the Laws of Logic.

Again, back your assertion up your assertions with good sources and definitions, and not hand waves like 'I don't care.'.

And where does your definition speak of the law of God? You said Katab-i-aqdas 72 was a law of God. Is that not a moral command? Does it not exist objectively (i.e. in the mind of God)? Does it not apply to how humans should teat fellow humans?

NO! It is a Divine Law of God, and not a moral command. Please note the definition of morals and morality provided. Again. to make your argument to have any substance at all you need to provide a definition for 'objective morality.'

[seer]

Then please answer the hypothetical. If there is no objective moral law, would it be absurd for society to subjectively adopt moral laws?

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

The point is that they are not objective in the ultimate sense. What you want is ultimate justice which is why you keep pushing for an ultimate objectivity of moral law. You could make an argument that morals are objective in the sense that right and wrong is that which is in our own best interests as a society of man, but you have no evidence for the notion that morality is ultimately and authoritatively objective.

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

[seer]

Neither, the Laws of Logic are reasoning tools that may be used in debates, arguments, and the basis of the philosophy of science, and Math in the objective use, and the metaphysical in the subjective use of the Laws of Logic.

Again, back your assertion up your assertions with good sources and definitions, and not hand waves like 'I don't care.'.

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

NO! It is a Divine Law of God, and not a moral command. Please note the definition of morals and morality provided. Again. to make your argument to have any substance at all you need to provide a definition for 'objective morality.'

What!? How is your God given law not moral? It tells us how to treat our fellow man, and I quote:

It is forbidden you to trade in slaves, be they men or women. It is not for him who is himself a servant to buy another of God’s servants, and this hath been prohibited in His Holy Tablet. Thus, by His mercy, hath the commandment been recorded by the Pen of justice. Let no man exalt himself above another; all are but bond slaves before the Lord, and all exemplify the truth that there is none other God but Him. He, verily, is the All-Wise, Whose wisdom encompasseth all things

It is a religious moral precept, from God, according to you.

[shunyadragon]

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

I answer the question specifically and directly. Neither, the Laws of Logic are reasoning tools that may be used in debates, arguments, and the basis of the philosophy of science, and Math in the objective use, and the metaphysical in the subjective use of the Laws of Logic. Again, back your assertion up your assertions with good sources and definitions, and not hand waves like 'I don't care.'.

What!? How is your God given law not moral? It tells us how to treat our fellow man, and I quote:

It is forbidden you to trade in slaves, be they men or women. It is not for him who is himself a servant to buy another of God’s servants, and this hath been prohibited in His Holy Tablet. Thus, by His mercy, hath the commandment been recorded by the Pen of justice. Let no man exalt himself above another; all are but bond slaves before the Lord, and all exemplify the truth that there is none other God but Him. He, verily, is the All-Wise, Whose wisdom encompasseth all things

It is a religious moral precept, from God, according to you.

I defined morals and morality to you from a reliable academic source. Clearly by this reference, Divine Laws of God are not morals nor ethics. Morals and ethics are lesser human standards then Divine Law. You used the word 'precept' in this post, which a moral precept would be a general rule of social behavior, no this does not follow. It would be 'Divine Precept' as used traditionally in theism to refer to a Canon or Doctrine, which is a higher standard then a 'moral precept.'

The Divine Law against slavery is absolute and authoritative. Prior to this Divine Laws and religious scripture concerning slavery in the Tanakh, New Testament and the Quran were not specific and open to interpretation. Over the millennia different churches, cultures, societies and individuals interpreted scripture differently as moral issues concerning slavery. It was not until the 19th and later that some churches proposed Doctrines forbidding slavery, and these were not objectively consistent with their scripture..

[seer]

I answer the question specifically and directly. Neither, the Laws of Logic are reasoning tools that may be used in debates, arguments, and the basis of the philosophy of science, and Math in the objective use, and the metaphysical in the subjective use of the Laws of Logic. Again, back your assertion up your assertions with good sources and definitions, and not hand waves like 'I don't care.'.

No Shuny, you did not answer the question. And why do you want me to offer references, you don't know what to think until some authority tells you what to think? Again, do YOU believe that the laws of logic are universal and objective. Why are you afraid to give a direct yes or no answer?

I defined morals and morality to you from a reliable academic source. Clearly by this reference, Divine Laws of God are not morals nor ethics. Morals and ethics are lesser human standards then Divine Law. You used the word 'precept' in this post, which a moral precept would be a general rule of social behavior, no this does not follow. It would be 'Divine Precept' as used traditionally in theism to refer to a Canon or Doctrine, which is a higher standard then a 'moral precept.'

That is nonsense your own quote spoke of religion as a source of morality.

The Divine Law against slavery is absolute and authoritative. Prior to this Divine Laws and religious scripture concerning slavery in the Tanakh, New Testament and the Quran were not specific and open to interpretation. Over the millennia different churches, cultures, societies and individuals interpreted scripture differently as moral issues concerning slavery. It was not until the 19th and later that some churches proposed Doctrines forbidding slavery, and these were not objectively consistent with their scripture..

So is that divine law objective?

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, you did not answer the question. And why do you want me to offer references, you don't know what to think until some authority tells you what to think? Again, do YOU believe that the laws of logic are universal and objective. Why are you afraid to give a direct yes or no answer?

Not all answers are yes and no. I answer the question specifically and directly. Neither, the Laws of Logic are reasoning tools that may be used in debates, arguments, and the basis of the philosophy of science, and Math in the objective use, and the metaphysical in the subjective use of the Laws of Logic.

Example: did you kill your mother with a shotgun or a bomb? Yes or no.

That is nonsense your own quote spoke of religion as a source of morality.

By definition it is a Source of Divine Law, which is a higher standard then 'morality' as defined in the English language.

So is that divine law objective?

It is a Divine Law revealed by God. I am not comfortable with the definition you use for 'objective,' as derived from St Thomas of Aquinas writings. This part of the problem with your failure to define 'objective morality.' I understand your general use in this context of using 'objective' to mean the source is God, but I do not use 'objective' in this context.

[seer]

It is a Divine Law revealed by God. I am not comfortable with the definition you use for 'objective,' as derived from St Thomas of Aquinas writings. This part of the problem with your failure to define 'objective morality.' I understand your general use in this context of using 'objective' to mean the source is God, but I do not use 'objective' in this context.

Why aren't you comfortable? If it is really the law of God then it is by definition objective. It would exist independently of our subjective reasoning. It wouldn't depend on our subjective or relative conclusions. Its source exist apart from humankind.