An Infinite Past?

[Tassman]

Objective reality is still objective reality even though our knowing is subjective [involves our minds].

Objective morality the same. Just because we are subjective beings does not make morality any less objective.

Objective morality is NOT the same. It cannot be tested or falsified and moral values have demonstrably changed over the millennia so they are NOT objective, e.g. we no longer stone adulterers or own slaves.

Now I never said "our only understanding of it is "limited and subjective." You said that! What I did say, "it may be both" limited and subjective. From your argument, is subjective morality. Not mine.

[Tassman]

Two things here. One, objective morality does not need fiat to be objective morality. Secondly, do you even know who, or what God is?

NO morality as we know it today.

Moral rules developed as a survival mechanism and its precursors can be found among our simian ancestors in the animal kingdom. We, along with ALL social animals, have evolved to facilitate community living.

JimL, would it be all right for me to take your life without your permission? Why not? [Yes, it is against civil Law. And if it was not?]

Of course not! We instinctively know that murder is contrary to our evolved nature as social organisms. You don't need God to tell you it's wrong.

[The Biblical reason murder is wrong is because we are made in God's image. My question is how are other animals not like humans? What do humans do that no other animals known to humans do what humans do?

Murder, generally speaking, (we make exceptions when it comes to protecting our community) is wrong because it is damages the community cohesion essential for the survival of our species.

[seer]

So then is the statement, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; . . . " not really true?

The psalmist wrote, "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. . . ."

Not sure. What is sin but a violation of the law of God? What law did a one month old baby violate?

[seer]

wow!! What a line of first class baloney!!!

Why? Be Specific.

[seer]

This is probably back to square one on the problem of the fundamentalist Calvinist worldview proposed by Mr. Black with a literal interpretation of Genesis Creation. Science should not be a competing worldview with religion. Again, Mr. Black believes only believers of the Christian worldview have any logical and rational justification and knowledge of God's Creation. All other world views are irrational and have absolutely no justification and knowledge of God's Creation.

First Shuny, science is method, it is not a worldview - so can you offer a better worldview for a precondition, or grounding, for an intelligible universe, human rationality, the reliability of our senses, the laws of logic or the uniformity of nature.

[seer]

The answer to the question is simple, murder is either wrong in and of itself, or it is not, so please answer the question directly with either a "yes murder is wrong in and of itself," or a "no murder is not wrong in and of itself."

Of course murder is not wrong in and of itself in a godless universe - how could it be?

[shunyadragon]

First Shuny, science is method, it is not a worldview -

Well . . . science itself is not a world view, but the philosophy of science, Methodological Naturalism is in fact a world view of our physical existence.

. . . so can you offer a better worldview for a precondition, or grounding, for an intelligible universe, human rationality, the reliability of our senses, the laws of logic or the uniformity of nature.

Done that many, many, many, many times. Better world view!?!?!?! How about that it works 100% of the time. Ancient world views like that of the ancient Biblical world view fails miserable when compared to the matter of fact evidence. To question the world view of Methodological Naturalism one has to make many awkward anecdotal assumptions that somehow fideism is the case.

Can you provide any rational logical argument that our senses are faulty in some way, other then simply assuming the Christian world view is the only rational logical worldview where the justification of knowledge is valid?

So far Mr. Black and you have only presented the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance stating how could you know the unknowable. Your Theist assumptions would apply that the justification and knowledge of all humanity is distorted and unreliable because of the Original Sin and Fall of humanity including Mr. Black and you. All justification and knowledge would be hopelessly distorted.

Your back to a preupositional Transcendental assertion of belief that is Begging the Question without a coherent argument to justify it.

[shunyadragon]

Of course murder is not wrong in and of itself in a godless universe - how could it be?

Can you provide an objective comparison on what a godless universe is like when compared to a universe with god(s).

[seer]

Well . . . science itself is not a world view, but the philosophy of science, Methodological Naturalism is in fact a world view of our physical existence.

Really? So Methodological Naturalism is a worldview - how so?

Done that many, many, many, many times. Better world view!?!?!?! How about that it works 100% of the time. Ancient world views like that of the ancient Biblical world view fails miserable when compared to the matter of fact evidence. To question the world view of Methodological Naturalism one has to make many awkward anecdotal assumptions that somehow fideism is the case.

Let's start here, how does Methodological Naturalism provide a precondition for an intelligible universe, human rationality, the reliability of our senses, the laws of logic or the uniformity of nature, universally?

[seer]

Can you provide an objective comparison on what a godless universe is like when compared to a universe with god(s).

I have no idea what this means.

[shunyadragon]

Really? So Methodological Naturalism is a worldview - how so?

It is the world view of our physical existence that the Law of non-contradiction applies and our physical existence is universally uniform and consistent, and the knowledge of science can by justified based on scientific methods.

Let's start here, how does Methodological Naturalism provide a precondition for an intelligible universe, human rationality, the reliability of our senses, the laws of logic or the uniformity of nature, universally?

The precondition is that the nature of our physical existence is uniform and consistent, and the Law of no-contradiction applies universally, based on the 100% accuracy of observations.

What is your precondition other then the assertion of presuppositional Transcendental 'belief?' Still waiting . . .

Done that many, many, many, many times. Better world view!?!?!?! How about that it works 100% of the time. Ancient world views like that of the ancient Biblical world view fails miserable when compared to the matter of fact evidence. To question the world view of Methodological Naturalism one has to make many awkward anecdotal assumptions that somehow fideism is the case.

Can you provide any rational logical argument that our senses are faulty in some way, other then simply assuming the Christian world view is the only rational logical worldview where the justification of knowledge is valid?

So far Mr. Black and you have only presented the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance stating how could you know the unknowable. Your Theist assumptions would apply that the justification and knowledge of all humanity is distorted and unreliable because of the Original Sin and Fall of humanity including Mr. Black and you. All justification and knowledge would be hopelessly distorted.

Your back to a preupositional Transcendental assertion of belief that is Begging the Question without a coherent argument to justify it.

Post not responded to nor are the questions answered. Still waiting . . . . . .

[shunyadragon]

I have no idea what this means.

Plain simple concise English at the high school level.

Can you provide an objective comparison on what a godless universe is like when compared to a universe with god(s).

[seer]

It is the world view of our physical existence that the Law of non-contradiction applies and our physical existence is universally uniform and consistent, and the knowledge of science can by justified based on scientific methods.

That makes no sense Shuny. What definition of Methodological Naturalism tells us that the laws of logic/nature are universally uniformed.

What is your precondition other then the assertion of presuppositional Transcendental 'belief?' Still waiting

You know the argument Shuny, our precondition for intelligibility and human rationality is God. What is your precondition ?

[seer]

Plain simple concise English at the high school level.

Can you provide an objective comparison on what a godless universe is like when compared to a universe with god(s).

I have no idea how you are using "objective" in this context.

[shunyadragon]

I have no idea how you are using "objective" in this context.

The difference is in just making a 'bald assertion,' and have a legitimate logical and rational comparison to demonstrate your point. There is only one world to observe, some believe in God some don't. Our present world is as it is regardless. Objectively we do not have two different worlds to observe, one with god(s), and on without.