An Infinite Past?

[seer]

Listen to yourself seer, Mr. Black and you have presented an assertion presuppositional statement of faith. You may claim that this assertion accounts 'for the universal laws of logic/nature, human rationality, an intelligible universe, objective morality, and the reliability of the senses. And the precondition for all these things,' but there is no accompanying argument nor explanation other then 'I believe it so.' There is no coherent argument between the assertion of belief, and the conclusion that it is 'absolutely true,' which represents a classic 'Begging the Question.' I would welcome an independent assessment of an unbiased third party concerning the validity and quality of the claims and arguments of the dialogue in terms of the rules of logic, but so far I am not encouraged by the responses. Still waiting . . .

Shuny, if you have a better justification and precondition than God for all these things then please provide it.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, if you have a better justification and precondition than God for all these things then please provide it.

Already done that. The simple argument that 'God did it,' is a Harvey rabbit.

[seer]

Already done that. The simple argument that 'God did it,' is a Harvey rabbit.

No Shuny, only in your twisted logic. You have not presented a worldview that does any such thing. You first tried to pawn off Methodological Naturalism as worldview - which as we have seen is nonsense. When pressed time and time again for an accepted definition that states that it is a worldview you could offer nothing. Then you babbled out something incoherent about nature - which again is not a worldview. Or does nature offer a precondition for the properties we have been speaking of.

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, only in your twisted logic. You have not presented a worldview that does any such thing. You first tried to pawn off Methodological Naturalism as worldview - which as we have seen is nonsense. When pressed time and time again for an accepted definition that states that it is a worldview you could offer nothing. Then you babbled out something incoherent about nature - which again is not a worldview. Or does nature offer a precondition for the properties we have been speaking of.

Still waiting . . .

[seer]

Still waiting . . .

Thank for proving Shuny that you have nothing. No non-theistic worldview that can compete. Its been real...

[shunyadragon]

Thank for proving Shuny that you have nothing. No non-theistic worldview that can compete. Its been real...

. . . and ah . . . Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo

[JimL]

I did not ever claim Jim that ethics were objective in themselves. But that God's law is objective to humankind and universal. And again - no, murder could NOT be a moral good. Since God does not arbitrarily choose right or wrong - AS I HAVE EXPLAINED.

Seer, you are contradicting yourself. If your assertion is true that morals are objective, then they must needs be objective in and of themselves, otherwise they are arbitrarily chosen by God. If they are not chosen by God, then they are objective in and of themselves whether they flow from God or not. So, are morals objective in and of themselves or not? Is God able to change his moral laws or not? You have asserted above that God can not arbitrarily choose right and wrong, which means that morality is objective in and of itself whether God exists or not. On the other hand, and to the contrary, you argue that without God there can be no objective morality. So, i don't think that you have thought this through completely, morals are either objective in and of themselves, even if God does not exist, or they are not objective at all. Which is it?

[seer]

. . . and ah . . . Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo

The sad part Shuny, is that your own religion teaches the same thing as mine. That human intelligence is the result of us being created in the image and likeness of God. So God is the precondition for human rationality. Your faith also teaches that the creation is contingent on God. So God is also a precondition for a for an intelligible universe.

[seer]

Seer, you are contradicting yourself. If your assertion is true that morals are objective, then they must needs be objective in and of themselves, otherwise they are arbitrarily chosen by God. If they are not chosen by God, then they are objective in and of themselves whether they flow from God or not. So, are morals objective in and of themselves or not? Is God able to change his moral laws or not? You have asserted above that God can not arbitrarily choose right and wrong, which means that morality is objective in and of itself whether God exists or not. On the other hand, and to the contrary, you argue that without God there can be no objective morality. So, i don't think that you have thought this through completely, morals are either objective in and of themselves, even if God does not exist, or they are not objective at all. Which is it?

Jim, I will try one more time. God's moral choices are not arbitrary because they are born from an immutable (changeless) moral nature. In other words, God does not arbitrarily decide that lying is wrong - God CAN NOT LIE. It is against His nature to do so, He is TRUTH. His prohibition on lying is a reflection of that immutable ethical character - and not in any sense arbitrary. And again, God's law is and remains objective to humankind. It is not dependent on the changing whims of men. Finally, apart from God there is no objective moral standard - no could there be.

[shunyadragon]

The sad part Shuny, is that your own religion teaches the same thing as mine. That human intelligence is the result of us being created in the image and likeness of God. So God is the precondition for human rationality. Your faith also teaches that the creation is contingent on God. So God is also a precondition for a for an intelligible universe.

I know very well what my faith teaches, and it bears no resemblance to the Van Til view that is believed by Mr. Black and you.

[seer]

I know very well what my faith teaches, and it bears no resemblance to the Van Til view that is believed by Mr. Black and you.

No Shuny, it teaches that an intelligible universe and human intelligence are both dependent on God, contingent on God. Therefore God is a precondition to both. So human intelligence and an intelligible cosmos are not the result of the blind forces of nature. They are the outcome of God's active work. Now you may not take it as far as Van Til and others but the preconditions are clearly there.

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, it teaches that an intelligible universe and human intelligence are both dependent on God, contingent on God. Therefore God is a precondition to both. So human intelligence and an intelligible cosmos are not the result of the blind forces of nature. They are the outcome of God's active work.

True, but . .

Now you may not take it as far as Van Til and others but the preconditions are clearly there.

. . . you are referring to the preconditions of Van Til, and the subject of the debate. In the Baha'i view human intellect, Created by God is fully capable of comprehending and justifying the knowledge of our physical existence in Harmony with religion, and the Law of non-contradiction, and the uniformity and conformity are universal, no problem. The worldview Mr. Black and you believe only recognizes the literal view of the Biblical Creation, which considers ALL other worldviews as irrational and illogical.

Humans need not have to PROVE the Nature of God's Creation, which is uniform, consistent, and the Law of non-contradiction holds.

[seer]

True, but . .

. . . you are referring to the preconditions of Van Til, and the subject of the debate. In the Baha'i view human intellect, Created by God is fully capable of comprehending and justifying the knowledge of our physical existence in Harmony with religion, and the Law of non-contradiction, and the uniformity and conformity are universal, no problem. The worldview Mr. Black and you believe only recognizes the literal view of the Biblical Creation, which considers ALL other worldviews as irrational and illogical.

Humans need not have to PROVE the Nature of God's Creation, which is uniform, consistent, and the Law of non-contradiction holds.

Well Shuny first, I would like to see how you justify knowledge apart from God. But my point here is that you would have to agree that God provides a precondition for human rationality and a intelligible universe. I see no such possibility apart from God. Neither of us believe that unaided nature created such conditions. Or could provide such a precondition.

[shunyadragon]

Well Shuny first, I would like to see how you justify knowledge apart from God. But my point here is that you would have to agree that God provides a precondition for human rationality and a intelligible universe. I see no such possibility apart from God. Neither of us believe that unaided nature created such conditions. Or could provide such a precondition.

It is not justified apart from God, because human intellect and rationality is part of the Creation of God and consistent and uniform. I do not agree that God provides a precondition for human rationality and an intelligible universe, that is Van Til fundamentalist foolishness. The universe is intelligible, uniform and consistent by its nature. My argument is not for an unaided nature, but it is fro an intelligible nature from the human perspective by the rational and intelligent gifts of God to human nature.

[seer]

It is not justified apart from God, because human intellect and rationality is part of the Creation of God and consistent and uniform. I do not agree that God provides a precondition for human rationality and an intelligible universe, that is Van Til fundamentalist foolishness. The universe is intelligible, uniform and consistent by its nature. My argument is not for an unaided nature, but it is fro an intelligible nature from the human perspective by the rational and intelligent gifts of God to human nature.

But nature is not intelligible in and of itself and we are not rational in and of ourselves. They are only such because of God. We are contingent on God, that makes God the precondition - whether you like that term or not. To argue otherwise would be to claim that nature and humans are intelligible/rational in and of themselves.