Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did God come from?
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 151 of 178 (76333)
01-02-2004 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by One_Charred_Wing
01-02-2004 10:38 PM


Re: Trying to get to all posts but limited on time
Born2Preach
What Grace2u is saying is NOT that the belief of God is required for us as humans to have morality, but the EXISTENCE of God whether or not people believe in Him.
Let's just assume that God is real for a second.
He gives us all the concept of morality. Sure, some may say he doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean they don't still get the morality.
Here's an analogy:
Before we 'believed' in primal human instinct, it was there. Given to us at birth. We know how to swallow, how to take a dump, etc. We don' t need to acknowledge its existence and effect on us, but it still takes place on everyone no matter what they believe.
Again: The point of the morality arguement is not that belief in God is required, but that it's simply given to us at birth like instinct.
The belief that something gave it to us is NOT relevant in the arguement, just that we have it.
So if one does not have a belief in God then like the ability to [as you so classily put it] take a dump one is born with morality? Does this also mean that like swallowing is controlled by the elctrochemical constituents of our bodies? Now how do we go from there to amassing evidence to show that God is the source of morality? This is the proposition that is constantly falling short of the mark.
The assumption of God's existence is not agreed upon. Without the ability to independantly verify God's existence then we are dependant upon God himself[herself?itself?] to give us evidence and He/She/It ain't talking.
To avoid further waste of time please do not say "But He does talk to you if you believe." because then we come around to the circular arguement.

...people today are so accustomed to pretentious nonsense that they see nothing amiss in reading without understanding, and many of them at length discover that they can without difficulty write in like manner themselves and win applause for it. And so it perpetuates itself.
G. A. Wells, 1991

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 01-02-2004 10:38 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 152 of 178 (76351)
01-03-2004 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by One_Charred_Wing
01-02-2004 10:38 PM


Re: Trying to get to all posts but limited on time
A couple of cents worth on my part of this diatribe:
___________________________________________________________________
"Disagree. "Truth" is a word of human language, and its meaning is therefore defined by human minds. Reality exists, obviously, but it does not say "A is true" or "B is true" or "A and ~A is false." These are statements in human language. Reality says only "A." Or reality says only "B." Then humans, upon observing "A," construct the statement "A is true." This does not bind reality at all, but instead describes our observations of it."
_____________________________________________________________________ ===Based on this, any word of the human language invented by humans is thus defineable by humans. This cuts to the chase. My Original premise is that there are two basic belief paradigms:
A-God exists. He is the source of all truth, all knowledge, all love, and all wisdom. OR...
B-Man...human intellect...defines all concepts ever uttered by man. In other words, human intellect is the center of all definitions, all theories, all beliefs, and all that we talk about. god is an invention of the human mind.
Now....does this not sound a bit like the Genesis "fable" of the tree of knowledge? Does not this tree hypothetically split awareness into more than one reality? Was not awareness totally mono BEFORE the Fall, and very much expanded after? In other words,(bare with me as I struggle with this thought concept) The Tree of Knowledge represents an expansion of the original command, which was "Obey". The Original command was also a choice. A or B. Once B was chosen,(which God must have foreknown)the eyes of the "sinners" were opened.
This opening of awareness...this concept of "ye shall be as gods" seems to equate with my definition of the alternative belief system where humans invented all concepts through language and have defined everything....in a sense, creation by definition. Discuss amongst yourselves.
[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-03-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 01-02-2004 10:38 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 01-05-2004 12:11 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 168 by Peter, posted 01-08-2004 9:08 AM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 153 of 178 (76352)
01-03-2004 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by grace2u
01-02-2004 4:09 PM


Re: absolute truth?
Commentary and more fable philosophy:
grace2u saidregarding absolute truths)
----------------------------------------------------------
So either,
1) They exist. Observations in the physical world suggest this.
2) They do not exist. Unlikely since it is impossible for them to NOT exist(since to claim something to not exist is to declare an absolute).
3)They exist and do not exist at the same time. This is irrational and there is no evidence which would suggest this.
----------------------------------------------------------------
May I bring up some more of the "biblical fable" to engage the discussion philosophically:
Revelation discusses the concept of Jesus Christ as God and also discusses the Beast.(foul arch enemy!) For the sake of the philosophy, let us assume that God=Absolute. Notice how Revelation breaks down the concept of these entities: Rev 1:8
8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come,the Almighty."(from New International Version)
It could be surmised that God Was before Man, Is during Man and Will Be after Man, since we all know that we are born and we die. Notice how in Genesis, the "serpant" states that (Gen 3:4-5
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.")
Now...bear with me, guys...for I am fascinated by this "fable book".
Notice how the bad guy...ie serpant which presumably also is the Beast..is defined in Revelation: Rev 17:7-8
" 8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come."
Notice how the Beast Was..(perhaps as an angel?) Now is not(perhaps because in our human era, there is no absolute) and yet will come(only for those who are not written in the book of life...perhaps they chose not to believe?) Just a thought.
[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-03-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by grace2u, posted 01-02-2004 4:09 PM grace2u has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 154 of 178 (76398)
01-03-2004 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Rrhain
01-02-2004 7:51 PM


I've just read the last exchange between you and Grace2U.
Even though what I am going to say you will not agree with I will say it anyway supposing an undecided 3rd party is observing.
All those Romans Chapter 1 verses that Grace2U cites can all be interpreted to mean the following :
IF anyone does not embrace the power of the gospel contained in the 17th verse, the wrath of the 18th verse is theirs.
In the context of this wrath persons suffering thereof exhibit certain qualities that can be recognized.
These "qualities" are listed in the chapter - a list of sins that are committed by persons who are in the grip of His wrath. This is the only context for this list. Mistakenly, traditional protestant teaching has used this list as a warning, that if you commit such things God will assign you to His wrath. Negative, not true, the list exists in the context of persons ALREADY suffering His wrath.
What's my point ?
Reject God ? (for whatever reason) He will reject you by darkening your mind, which incapacitates ones ability to recognize Him.
Violators simply do not care about God or what He thinks of them.
God responds to dis-faith by empowering non-faith, resist His urge and eventually He withdraws it. This is the unpardonable sin state of mind : "God sense" removed.
Conclusion:
Atheism is a penalty from God for continually resisting Him. Your minds are wired/disconnected to not believe as a penalty for not wanting a Boss.
Source of Theology Information : Dr.Gene Scott (Ph.D. Stanford University)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Rrhain, posted 01-02-2004 7:51 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-09-2004 2:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 173 by Rrhain, posted 01-10-2004 3:25 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6155 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 155 of 178 (76574)
01-05-2004 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Phat
01-03-2004 4:52 AM


Some more confusing debate material
I understand that the statements made were probably difficult to put into words, however the statements were also hard to understand so I'll do my best:
The problem with the creation by definition idea you just mentioned is that things DO exist before we know about them.
Example:We didn't know about other universes for some time, but they were there. We didn't have a concrete way of uttering 'psyche' or exploring it for the longest time, but there were things buzzing around in our minds since the dawn of time.
So this sense of morality that you call a human invention can't really be called a human invention for the same reason. Before philosophy...
(argueable this never was, but let's say there was for a second)
Would it be perfectly fine to kill, rape, and plunder without good justification? Somehow I don't think so. Now it becomes this question:
IS RIGHT AND WRONG JUST DECIDED BY SOCIETY? SOCIAL MAJORITY, THEN?
If your answer is yes, then we can call Martin Luther King Jr.'s acts in the 60s absolutely unnacceptable and in every way against all that is right and just in the universe. Why? Because humans said so! And let's face it: The majority of people didn't agree with him at first.
It may have not seemed right back then, but looking back now we know it was.
In the fray of things, an arguement with a friend for example, our sense of right and wrong and words we can't take back are dimmed. Looking back on the event we can have a better understanding of what should've, would've, and could've.
But just by saying our sense of right and wrong is dulled means that we are supposed to sense right with, well, a sense. Kind of like we're supposed to use our eyes to see something in front of us.
Also we agree that post incident we have a better understanding of what should've been done. The statement that understanding of should-haves can be gauged implies very strongly that there is a code of right and wrong.
Speaking of human concepts of reality that sort of fall into 'creation by definition', how 'bout this:
"What you don't know can't hurt you."
After a LITTLE thought this easily wards off objections:
----------------------------------------
Person:What you don't know can't hurt you.
Me:What if you don't know somebody's behind you, then he stabs you in the back?
Person:You didn't know about him until he stabs you. Thus, it didn't hurt you until you knew about it.
Me:What if you get shot in your sleep?
Person: Then you will ascend to afterlife unharmed. In the absence of afterlife you will cease to know and feel. Since you don't know or feel, nothing can hurt you.
Me: (Strangles him in frustration)
-----------------------------------
And really it continues to, but the fact remains that just because you don't know about it now doesn't mean you won't know about it in a minute. So really, it's more like:
"What you don't know is about to hurt you."
The reality of the proverbial scenario is that the man behind you is about to attack, regardless of your moment of bliss.
The point of this lecture: Things exist regardless of our knowledge of their presence in reality.
That's about all I've got to say. Anybody else want to chip in?

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.
[This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 01-05-2004]
[This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 01-06-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Phat, posted 01-03-2004 4:52 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by :æ:, posted 01-05-2004 12:20 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 156 of 178 (76621)
01-05-2004 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by One_Charred_Wing
01-05-2004 12:11 AM


Re: Some more confusing debate material
Some comments on a few misconceptions in your post.
B2P writes:
Would it be perfectly fine to kill, rape, and plunder without good justification? Somehow I don't think so.
Your phrase "without good justification" disqualifies your question as legitimate. Essentially you're asking "Would it be good to do something that I'll now define as not-good?" Obviously the answer to the question is no, but it's hardly relevant to the notion of the existence of absolute morality. Sure, "good" is absolutely better than "bad" according to our definitions of them. The problem is that things can be simultaneously good in one sense and bad in another.
IS RIGHT AND WRONG JUST DECIDED BY SOCIETY? SOCIAL MAJORITY, THEN?
No. Right and wrong is decided individually. Social majority decides legality. More directly, the majority can decide how the society is governed, but nobody can make you believe that the majority is right about everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 01-05-2004 12:11 AM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 01-06-2004 11:36 PM :æ: has replied
 Message 165 by blitz77, posted 01-07-2004 2:17 AM :æ: has not replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 157 of 178 (76676)
01-05-2004 4:06 PM


grace2u writes:
...however I do not consider your declaration that it is a descriptive observation of reality to be a sufficient rebuttal. For one, you provide no examples and no explanation as to what you are suggesting.
My apologies. I thought my meaning would be clearer and I think it is in context with the rest of the post from whence the statement was extracted. The statement "Absolute truth does not exist" is a statement about our observations of reality and is no more a claim to absolute truth than any scientific statement ("Mass-energy is always conserved," for example). Neither statement is known to be absolutely true. They are instead simply consistent with every observation. They are hypothesized to be true and held tentatively until contradictory observations are made. So, your claim is false that the statement itself is purporting to be absolutely true.
The statement that it is a descriptive observation of reality I would have to ask, what do you suppose this reality to be?
I suppose that reality just is.
Is there such a thing as something that is not real?
Not really but there are different levels of reality -- specifically, subjective vs. objective reality.
Absolute truth reigns sovereignly over that which you understand this reality to be...
No. Wrong. "Absolute truth" is an idealization that exists in human minds. It does not exist in objective reality.
...and any concept of what we think this reality is, is compared to what our view of absolute truth is...
Sorry, I cannot seem to get your meaning with this phrase.
At any rate, you agree that reality exists, what do you suggest this reality is?
Reality.
Finaly, you have yet to explain to me, how it is possible that absolute truth may NOT exist?
Again you're being disingenuous. You've asserted the absolute truth necessarily exists, so it is your burden to prove your assertion. "The impossibility of the contrary," as you are wont to say, is insufficient without a demonstration of impossibility.
That said, it should be clear by now that the concepts of truth and falsity are human creations. They are means of expressing our ideas about reality, but they are not reality themselves. Reality says "A." That's all. It's HUMANS that say "A is true," attaching the truth predicate to A. Quite frequently we have made subsequent inspections of reality only to find that where we used to say "A is true" we now say "A is false."
You see, truth and falsity are only concepts or symbols. Since that is the case, "truth" is subject to redefinition or, if you prefer, reconceptualization. This is rather uncharacteristic of something supposedly absolute, don'tcha think?

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-05-2004 10:30 PM :æ: has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 178 (76750)
01-05-2004 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by :æ:
01-05-2004 4:06 PM


absolute truth
:ae:
I'm going to reply here, to the question I raised elsewhere. I've still got the same problem, to wit, when you say
That said, it should be clear by now that the concepts of truth and falsity are human creations. They are means of expressing our ideas about reality, but they are not reality themselves.
I still hear you leaving unsaid the implicit assumption that we are not created beings operating under a creator's agenda. Begging, in other words, the evolutionary point of view. There are, of course, concepts of truth and falsity that are human creations. And so, if we are made in the image of some creator, He might also reasonably have some ideas about truth and falsity. In fact, we are told that He does, telling us things like, "you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free." and "I am the way, the truth, and the life." He also says that He doesn't change, implying that truth as He defines it is absolute, and even knowable, if we play by His rules. We will know when we get there, because what we get will set us free.
Now, experientially, this is the way the scientific game can be played, (but, according to Kuhn, rarely is). There is absolute truth "out there." There are rules (God given, whether we recognize that or not) which if we follow them, we get closer to or more of this truth. The closer we get, or the more truth we "know" the freer we become. So, learn the rules, do the science, and, use some measure of your freedom increase to know you haven't wandered off track.
It's against the rules, of course to assert dogmatically that this is absolutely true. "If any man thinks that he knows something, he knows nothing as he ought to know it." But it's an idea with an outside or objective measure of reality. Count your choices against your "have tos", and you have some measure of freedom. Watch that change as you attempt to "know the truth." If it increases, you have some more confidence that maybe truth is absolute after all. Because we are operating as created beings, and our creator made what is truth to us absolute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by :æ:, posted 01-05-2004 4:06 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by :æ:, posted 01-06-2004 12:12 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 163 by grace2u, posted 01-06-2004 6:01 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 159 of 178 (76764)
01-06-2004 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
12-11-2003 10:48 PM


Where did He come from? Gods character
First a few observations about God.( I am taking this information from a respected apologist,found at Why Isn't the Evidence Clearer?) ==Ancient thought often held that the gods made man because they were in need of servants. Much modern thought argues that God made man because He was lonely or did not have anyone around to love or appreciate Him. However, the God of the Bible is in no way dependent upon mankind even for love or worship. That He reveals Himself at all is for our benefit, not His.
But even if He reveals evidence of Himself only to benefit us, why isn't He more forthright about it? This much seems clear: If He made His presence or the evidence too obvious, it would interfere with His demonstration, which is intended to draw out or reveal the true inner character of mankind. We know from several passages of Scripture that this is part of God's purpose for maintaining a relative silence. For example, in Psalm 50:21-22 we read, "These things you have done, and I kept silence; you thought that I was just like you; I will reprove you, and state the case in order before your eyes." From these statements we come to see that God is not struggling desperately to gain man's attention. Actually He is restraining Himself in order to demonstrate to human beings something about our inner character, or tendency to evil. We might call this "the Sheriff in the tavern" principle--people tend to be good when they think they are being watched by an authority. If a sheriff wants to find out or reveal who the troublemakers are in a tavern, he must either hide or appear to be an ineffective wimp, otherwise the bad guys will behave as well as everyone else.
Of course we should not push this analogy too far: unlike the Sheriff, God doesn't need to see men's evil actions in order to accurately judge them. Moreover, He has not stated His full reasons for allowing men to demonstrate their evil intent through their actions. The point we are trying to make here is that there are reasons that we can understand that may explain to some degree why God has chosen to run the world the way He has."====I know that the thing that is hard to accept is the audacity of absolute truth believers to speculate on how God thinks while still not being able to prove His existance. SIGH>>>>>

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 12-11-2003 10:48 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by NosyNed, posted 01-06-2004 12:41 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 162 by :æ:, posted 01-06-2004 1:21 PM Phat has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 160 of 178 (76766)
01-06-2004 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Phat
01-06-2004 12:32 AM


Knowing God
I know that the thing that is hard to accept is the audacity of absolute truth believers to speculate on how God thinks while still not being able to prove His existance
I find it astonishing that they would think for a minute that they could know how God thinks. A being who created all and knows all. And they think they can tell us how he thinks? Arrogance!
The think they will tell God how He will create the universe and life? Arrogance!
They think they will argue with the word He wrote into the very fabric of space, time, the rocks and life? Arrogance!

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Phat, posted 01-06-2004 12:32 AM Phat has not replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 161 of 178 (76811)
01-06-2004 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-05-2004 10:30 PM


Re: absolute truth
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
I still hear you leaving unsaid the implicit assumption that we are not created beings operating under a creator's agenda. Begging, in other words, the evolutionary point of view.
Not at all, and instead these statements reveal that you are projecting your own creator-concept onto the matter. Begging a question of your own, as it were.
My statements do not necessarily exclude a creator, and for that reason they do not beg the question. They may exclude YOUR ideas about YOUR creator, however as I've come to realize, my god is not your God.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
And so, if we are made in the image of some creator, He might also reasonably have some ideas about truth and falsity.
And then again, he might not.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
Because we are operating as created beings, and our creator made what is truth to us absolute.
This statement first begs the question of a creator and then derives a non-sequitur from it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-05-2004 10:30 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-09-2004 3:48 PM :æ: has not replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 162 of 178 (76821)
01-06-2004 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Phat
01-06-2004 12:32 AM


Re: Where did He come from? Gods character
Some comments on the excerpted portions of that article:
If He made His presence or the evidence too obvious, it would interfere with His demonstration, which is intended to draw out or reveal the true inner character of mankind.
This seems to be in conflict with what I understand to be the prime purpose for mankind here on earth according to most all evangelical ministers to which I've listened: to come to know and trust in God and be saved by His grace. It doesn't seem reasonable that He would want to bring out the evil in men by hiding from them.
Of course we should not push this analogy too far: unlike the Sheriff, God doesn't need to see men's evil actions in order to accurately judge them.
This again stands in conflict with the doctrines of most evangelical churches with which I'm familiar. According to them, works and deeds are irrelevant anyway -- it is faith and grace that save. (never mind that scriptural passages exist which support both positions yet also stand them in opposition to eachother) So the entire analogy is irrelevant.
Moreover, He has not stated His full reasons for allowing men to demonstrate their evil intent through their actions. The point we are trying to make here is that there are reasons that we can understand that may explain to some degree why God has chosen to run the world the way He has.
This sounds too much like "basically we're not sure what God's reasons are, but we're convinced that the He has them." Not too convincing to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Phat, posted 01-06-2004 12:32 AM Phat has not replied

  
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 178 (76885)
01-06-2004 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-05-2004 10:30 PM


Re: absolute truth
Great observations.. I have read your comments on this post and I find them to be quite refreshing. In fact, I agree with you on all points made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-05-2004 10:30 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-07-2004 3:31 PM grace2u has replied

  
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6155 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 164 of 178 (76945)
01-06-2004 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by :æ:
01-05-2004 12:20 PM


A little less confusing
:ae: responds:
"Your phrase "without good justification" disqualifies your question as legitimate. Essentially you're asking "Would it be good to do something that I'll now define as not-good?" Obviously the answer to the question is no, but it's hardly relevant to the notion of the existence of absolute morality. Sure, "good" is absolutely better than "bad" according to our definitions of them. The problem is that things can be simultaneously good in one sense and bad in another."
Okay, first sentence: I put that there to discourage what-ifs. Somebody threw a really off-the-wall justification of killing/rape at somebody else, I think it might have been in the "Where did God come from?" board. It was around the lines of "What if a mad scientist gets a hold of something that will wipe out 90% of the earth and he will agree to not use it if you rape your daughter and then kill her?"
Call me heartless, but I couldn't help but chuckle at the idea because that brings up a lot of other how/why questions regarding what chain of events lead up to that situation. But even so, I had
to acknowledge that.
People seem to assume this Absolute Morality a lot of us are bringing up is like human laws; this means that Absolute morality doesn't do what-ifs. Really, it wouldn't seem like it would judging by the 'absolute' in the name. But really, if it didn't it would be like a human law and contradict.
Killing, raping etc. are bad on their own without justification. Do you all agree? I hope so...
Not trying to save the world by doing that horrible stuff to please some wierd mad scientist would be bad if you counsider how many people would suffer for that one good deed. While I doubt this situation is legit, we agree that NOT saving the world is bad. So, the Universal Law DOES weigh the consequences. That may sound like I'm stretching things just to defend my case, but this is not so.
Let me give another example to defend my last sentence. Let's bring up murder. You've probably heard of the Salem Witch Trials brought up to make Christianity look like the KKK. Well, looking back we know this is wrong, and I'm sure we can agree that it was wrong. We now, for the most part, agree either that witches and witchcraft are all a bunch of hocus-pocus, or at least they're not hurting any of us, just doing their own thing. However, back then they were considered an active and constant threat, like terrorists. They thought what they did was right back then, which brings up another point.
Someone I talked to, who may have gotten this from another source, once wrote it out quite plainly that morality can be put into three (argueably)ascending levels. I've given this visual aide as best I could for comminication's sake.
Level 1-Individual Morality- what one personally identifies as right and wrong
Level 2-Social Morality- what society/government etc. considers right and wrong
Level 3- Absolute(or Divine) Morality- an absolute guideline of what is right and wrong, above both other levels.
The Salem Witch trials were individual/socil morality. Obviously this can be disagreed with; witches or not those people didn't deserve to be burned at the stake for not thinking like everyone else.
Social Morality isn't always right, either. Medival executions were considered almost a divine practice, which nowadays we look back and realize how horrible those were.
We have probably, I'm making an educated guess here, agreed from the start that levels 1 and 2 are often not right. Just by saying that there is a hint of something beyond and above them both.
Objection: One could argue that it's just his point of view from a hindsight, therefore more defined. Well, that's just common sense.
But, who's to say that hindsight is always right? When people debate over what's right and wrong, it goes kind of like this:
-----------
That was not justified because X.
But consider the fact that Y.
Well, that's true, Y might justify X.
--------
On a very rare occasion the other might responder that Y doesn't justify X, and then present a reason. However, the reasons keep adding up but the two always seem to agree that there can be a justification, and the justification(Y) justifies the action(X) unless there is another justification(Z) that overrules Y.
That's as straightforward a respons as I could make it. Hope it comminicated the point I had in mind.

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.
[This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 01-06-2004]
[This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 01-06-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by :æ:, posted 01-05-2004 12:20 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by :æ:, posted 01-07-2004 1:01 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 178 (76951)
01-07-2004 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by :æ:
01-05-2004 12:20 PM


Re: Some more confusing debate material
I think the main problem with both of your arguments is that morality is a "construct", an abstract idea used define a set of actions as "right" or "wrong". For those of us that are religious, "right" would be doing what God wants us to do, and "wrong" would be disobeying God. In this case, God provides us with our definition of morality.
quote:
No. Right and wrong is decided individually. Social majority decides legality. More directly, the majority can decide how the society is governed, but nobody can make you believe that the majority is right about everything.
In this case, you're defining "right" and "wrong" in the sense of what the person him/herself defines as right or wrong; ie there is no "absolute" authority on morality. Ie, morality is relative, not absolute.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 01-07-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by :æ:, posted 01-05-2004 12:20 PM :æ: has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024