An Infinite Past?

[seer]

First, that does not translate as being clueless. Of course I do not know the ultimate truths of anything. God only knows the ultimate truth.

Listen Shuny, you quoted the prohibition against slavery as an example of Divine law, then you tell us that we can not ultimately know Divine law. If that is correct then you can not know if this prohibition against slavery is ultimately what God wants, He may actually favor slavery. How could we ever know?

Yes it is possible God could reveal the absolute truth to a fallible human, but the first BIG problem is the immense diversity of those that claim that they have been revealed the 'absolute truth' from God, and many do not agree and their claims contradict each other. There is no logical nor reasonably way I can distinguish between who is correct out of the thousands of conflicting claims. This diversity of claims goes beyond Christianity to Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and thousand of others who differ greatly. The second problem is the filter of interpretation of what was revealed and language of communication, which limits the understanding who rely on this claim of absolute truth,

The problem is that you claim to know the 'absolute truth of God,' and you cannot be wrong.

[seer]

But you do admit that they are arbitrary, not absolute, that there is no objective standard per se, but rather that there is an objective giver of arbitrary moral laws, correct?

No Jim, God's ethical law is not in the least bit arbitrary. They are based on His eternal wisdom and knowledge and immutable moral character. And it is the standard by which all men will be judged.

It isn't a matter of who is correct. Your life is significant to you, but the ants that you've sprayed or squashed under foot are not significant to you. So who is correct? Of course being that we are human and cherish our own lives we, if we are not complete psychopaths, have an evolved empathy for other human beings and so do unto others as we would have done to ourselves. Is the pschopath wrong? We non pschopaths would all say so, but nature itself is amoral or rather impersonal. To paraphrase Shakespeare: "There is no such thing as right or wrong accept thinking makes it so," and nature is not a mind that thinks, we are!

See Jim, you can't even answer the question, who is correct - the Nazi or the Jewish man. That is why your position is completely absurd, and why your life, and all ethical reasoning are completely meaningless.

You want to quote Shakespeare:

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player hat struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Full of sound and fury James, signifying nothing....

[shunyadragon]

Acctually no concerning what the Baha'i Faith teaches, which you apparently do not remotely understand. I can't expect you to since you believe everyone else is false and only those that agree with you share your view can know anything, and know only the absolute truth, and be absolutely correct.

I did not claim to know what is absolute truth, and 'positively correct,' as Mr. Black and you did.

I believe I am as fallible as Mr. Black and you are. I consider our claims as unreasonable and illogically based riddled with fallacies.

[seer]

Acctually no concerning what the Baha'i Faith teaches, which you apparently do not remotely understand. I can't expect you to since you believe everyone else is false and only those that agree with you share your view can know anything, and know only the absolute truth, and be absolutely correct.

No Shuny, Mr. Black never said that you couldn't know anything, but that you can not justify knowledge. We both do believe that you certainly can know things since you are created in the image of God and created as rational beings in an intelligible universe. Let me quote Mr. Black in response to you:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ep-time/page29

Given the biblical argument regarding all knowledge being in Christ, and the consequences it says follows from rejecting Him, anyone who rejects must deal with the argument He used, or else they beg the question. You are proposing a particular view of reality. Ergo you it is up to you to justify your knowledge claims, and to demonstrate that your worldview can make sense of them, and account for the principles you're employing in your arguments.

It is about justification Shuny.

I did not claim to know what is absolute truth, and 'positively correct,' as Mr. Black and you did.

Ok, so you have no idea if your faith is correct or not - duly noted.

[JimL]

No Jim, God's ethical law is not in the least bit arbitrary. They are based on His eternal wisdom and knowledge and immutable moral character. And it is the standard by which all men will be judged.

Well it seems you are changing your tune once again. Are morals objectively absolute or not? You previously implied that they are not, and your bible implies the same.

See Jim, you can't even answer the question, who is correct - the Nazi or the Jewish man. That is why your position is completely absurd, and why your life, and all ethical reasoning are completely meaningless.

I did answer the question, as usual you just ignore it and continue on with your unfounded assertion. I said that neither are right in the ultimate sense, since there is no objective law giver. It seems to me that you just don't want to be responsible for your own moral decisions, you want a God to decide what is moral or immoral for you.

You want to quote Shakespeare:


Full of sound and fury James, signifying nothing....

Yes, and in my opinion he was correct about that as well, but life is still significant to those who live it.

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, Mr. Black never said that you couldn't know anything, but that you can not justify knowledge. We both do believe that you certainly can know things since you are created in the image of God and created as rational beings in an intelligible universe. Let me quote Mr. Black in response to you:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ep-time/page29

It is about justification Shuny.

the problem is you cannot conveniently separate justification and knowledge, because both Mr. Black and you consider evolution false, in other words scientists cannot know the history of life.

Ok, so you have no idea if your faith is correct or not - duly noted.

False. Fallacy: Argument from Ignorance.

[Tassman]

No Jim, God's ethical law is not in the least bit arbitrary. They are based on His eternal wisdom and knowledge and immutable moral character. And it is the standard by which all men will be judged. .

OK! All you have to do is give some specific examples of God's immutable ethical law. You never do despite endless requests. All we get are bald assertions about being So support your unevidenced assertion that we were "created in the image of God" and are subject to his "immutable ethical law." Otherwise you will be dismissed as delusional.

BTW: I can only assume you do not address my posts because you are unable to; if you could you would.

[seer]

the problem is you cannot conveniently separate justification and knowledge, because both Mr. Black and you consider evolution false, in other words scientists cannot know the history of life.

That is a completely different point Shuny. Again, Mr. Black did not say we could not know anything - just that you can not rationally justify it. As far as science goes, I simply to not have as much faith in the process as you do. Science is not my god.

False. Fallacy: Argument from Ignorance.

What are you talking about? You said: I did not claim to know what is absolute truth, and 'positively correct,' as Mr. Black and you did.

So you do not know if your faith is the correct faith - that would be an absolute truth.

[shunyadragon]

That is a completely different point Shuny. Again, Mr. Black did not say we could not know anything - just that you can not rationally justify it. As far as science goes, I simply to not have as much faith in the process as you do. Science is not my god.

What are you talking about? You said: I did not claim to know what is absolute truth, and 'positively correct,' as Mr. Black and you did.

So you do not know if your faith is the correct faith - that would be an absolute truth.

Without justification for knowledge, you cannot know anything. You cannot separate the two seer. Mr. Black and you are playing the game of 'slippery eels' to avoid a coherent reasonable and logical argument.

I am as fallible and not able to assert that what I know is absolutely correct as Mr. Black as you. To assert that if there is no absolute proof or being 'absolutely correct' knowledge therefore your wrong is a fallacy: Arguing from Ignorance by definition.

Source: .wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

© Copyright Original Source

Mr. Black specifically rejects the knowledge of science concerning 100% of scientific observations justify that our physical existence is uniform and consistent. Therefore questions the knowledge of science.

The fact that you stated that I was 'clueless,' because I did not believe I was 'absolutely correct about my knowledge and beliefs in God is another very good example of the fallacy.

[JimL]

Without justification for knowledge, you cannot know anything. You cannot separate the two seer. Mr. Black and you are playing the game of 'slippery eels' to avoid a coherent reasonable and logical argument.

I am as fallible and not able to assert that what I know is absolutely correct as Mr. Black as you. To assert that if there is no absolute proof or being 'absolutely correct' knowledge therefore your wrong is a fallacy: Arguing from Ignorance by definition.

Source: .wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

© Copyright Original Source

Mr. Black specifically rejects the knowledge of science concerning 100% of scientific observations justify that our physical existence is uniform and consistent. Therefore questions the knowledge of science.

The fact that you stated that I was 'clueless,' because I did not believe I was 'absolutely correct about my knowledge and beliefs in God is another very good example of the fallacy.

I don't think that Mr. Black actually rejects the reality of scientific observations, he only rejects the idea that human minds able to comprehend such observations could exist without a God. In other words his assertion is that human minds, or any minds for that matter, could not evolve from out of a non rational source.

[seer]

Without justification for knowledge, you cannot know anything. You cannot separate the two seer. Mr. Black and you are playing the game of 'slippery eels' to avoid a coherent reasonable and logical argument.

Actually yes Shuny, I can separate the two. Mr. Black, as I quoted, questions your justification for knowledge. Mr. Black and I ground knowledge in the Biblical worldview and justify our reasoning thusly. How do you justify knowledge Shuny?

I am as fallible and not able to assert that what I know is absolutely correct as Mr. Black as you. To assert that if there is no absolute proof or being 'absolutely correct' knowledge therefore your wrong is a fallacy: Arguing from Ignorance by definition.

Mr. Black specifically rejects the knowledge of science concerning 100% of scientific observations justify that our physical existence is uniform and consistent. Therefore questions the knowledge of science.

The fact that you stated that I was 'clueless,' because I did not believe I was 'absolutely correct about my knowledge and beliefs in God is another very good example of the fallacy.

What fallacy Shuny? How many times have you told us how fallible men are, that we can't know absolute truth? And since all science is done by fallible men I have no reason to assume that they are always correct or that things won't change in the future. And as far as your faith - I have no idea what you mean - are you 10% sure that you are correct, 50% sure? How do you even begin to quantify the likelihood that you are correct?

[shunyadragon]

Actually yes Shuny, I can separate the two. Mr. Black, as I quoted, questions your justification for knowledge. Mr. Black and I ground knowledge in the Biblical worldview and justify our reasoning thusly. How do you justify knowledge Shuny?

No problem In science, by the consistent progressive observations of out physical existence by scientific methods, well grounded in the in the 1oo% record of consistent observations based on the Law of non-contradiction.

What fallacy Shuny?

Yes, seer a fallacy by definition.

How many times have you told us how fallible men are, that we can't know absolute truth?

True, of all humanity, including Mr. Black and you. So far you have failed to demonstrate how Mr. Black and you have the perfect truth, and absolutely correct about anything.

And since all science is done by fallible men I have no reason to assume that they are always correct or that things won't change in the future.

Fortunately science does not make this claim that scientists are always correct as Mr. Black and you claim. The knowledge of science evolves as a collective body of knowledge that changes over time with a system of checks, balances and peer review which makes it a reliable source of knowledge. Science is not dependent on the individual work of fallible scientists. There is a problem here of the basic understanding of science, when you make statements and claims that have absolutely othing to do with how science works. You are obviously clueless as how science works.

And as far as your faith - I have no idea what you mean - are you 10% sure that you are correct, 50% sure? How do you even begin to quantify the likelihood that you are correct?

Quantify?!?!? How ridiculous!! Percentages are meaningless and I will leave that to anal attentive engineers, accountants, and economists. I sincerely believe I am making my judgments and decisions concerning my faith to the best of my ability as a fallible human. My certainty as to validity of scientific knowledge of our physical existence is the best possible based on the present information available. I am confident that scientific knowledge with evolve and grow and change as it should as new information becomes available.

At least I acknowledge in all humility that I am a fallible human and I am always looking for new information so that I am open to change.

[Tassman]

Actually yes Shuny, I can separate the two. Mr. Black, as I quoted, questions your justification for knowledge. Mr. Black and I ground knowledge in the Biblical worldview and justify our reasoning thusly. How do you justify knowledge Shuny?

How do you and Mr Black that the biblical worldview is correct, (to borrow your phrase)? What credible evidence do you have for asserting that the biblical worldview provides a solid of knowledge upon which to "justify" your reasoning? Answer: None!

What fallacy Shuny? How many times have you told us how fallible men are, that we can't know absolute truth? And since all science is done by fallible men I have no reason to assume that they are always correct or that things won't change in the future. And as far as your faith - I have no idea what you mean - are you 10% sure that you are correct, 50% sure? How do you even begin to quantify the likelihood that you are correct?

Strawman: Science doesn't claim "to know absolute truth" OR "that they are always correct" OR "that things won't change in the future".

Nevertheless science reasonably claims to have acquired an ever growing body of empirically verifiable knowledge upon which to base its understanding of how the universe functions. And this knowledge is growing exponentially.

By contrast, unlike scientific knowledge which is based upon verified facts, your

[seer]

No problem In science, by the consistent progressive observations of out physical existence by scientific methods, well grounded in the in the 1oo% record of consistent observations based on the Law of non-contradiction.

What do you mean 1oo% record? Are not fallible men doing science? And that is the bottom line Shuny, you put your faith in fallible men and we put our faith in an all knowing, all powerful God who can impart truth and certainty to humans. That is the whole argument in a nut shell.

[Tassman]

What do you mean 1oo% record? Are not fallible men doing science? And that is the bottom line Shuny,

Not in fallible men but in scientific methodology. This has acquired an ever growing body of empirically verifiable knowledge upon which to build our understanding of how the universe works.

you put your faith in fallible men and we put our faith in an all knowing, all powerful God who can impart truth and certainty to humans. That is the whole argument in a nut shell.