This really has nothing to do with multiple universes. So I am not rejecting multiple universes because it would do away with morality.
So what you posted on the original thread:
Message 5It's not complicated really...
In order to rescue the 'chance hypothesis' and escape the moral implications of an orderly creator, 'scientists' (prophets) and their 'followers' (sheep), have offered a metaphysical theology of their own.
Has nothing to do with the validity of the theories - as claimed in your subtitle - nor with the reality of multiple universes, which you linked to M- and string- theories only by the vaguest implication:
Message 16... in the context of 'Parrallel Universes' which 'String' and 'M' theory do not necessarily imply,
And now claim you are NOT rejecting --
Maybe there are multiple universes. If there are, morality would still be absolute in my opinion.
What I was driving at, was that mutiple universes can be (and have been) used to posit the notion that ultimately, reality is infinite in the manner of order and function of law. I am not saying anyone here has used this notion, but I know folks who have.
... thus demonstrating that your ONLY reason for posting on the original thread was to drag it off topic into a discussion of your concepts of morality, concepts that have nothing to do with the theories, OR their validity, one way or the other.
Multiple universes are not needed to posit that your concept of morality is wrong: all we need to do is look at this world to see that it is.
Example: in the 1700's it was morally acceptable in the USA to have slaves; it is not morally acceptable now -- what has changed? Society. Conclusion: morals are based on social values not on absolutes.
Example: murder is generally considered to be immoral -- except where it is socially acceptable, such as in the execution of prisoners (for crimes varying from society to society) or during wars (where we now find it socially acceptable for "collateral damage" killing thousands of innocent people just for being where they were) or where it was\is okay to kill slaves on a whim -- what is different? Societies. Conclusion: morals are based on social values and not on absolutes.
There are many examples where {X} is moral in case {A} and immoral in case {B} -- in fact I cannot think of any where this is NOT the case -- and this shows that the moral value of {X} is relative to the case. Conclusion: morals are relative and not absolute.
When speaking of absolute moral truth, if you say that 'all truth is relative', does that statement include itself?
You are conflating terms here. We can talk about truth, and we can talk about morality, and we can talk about what is true about morality (ie that it IS relative and based on social values and not absolute carved in stone somewhere). And we can talk about absolutes, such as all positive numbers being greater than zero, and we can talk about "absolute truths." Putting words together doesn't make your concept valid, what makes it valid is the reality behind the concept.
Truth -- as far as we know it -- is based on our perceptions of reality, and the layers or circles in the first post on this thread that deal with the layers or boundaries of (un)certainty we have with our perceptions of reality. "Absolute truth" is still just truth, no modifier needed: it is either true or it isn't.
And we can test our concepts of reality by how well they do relate to the evidence. Such as our knowledge of the "absolute truth" of the earth being an oblate spheroid that orbits the sun in an outer arm of a (non-specific one of many similar) galaxy, and that it has been doing so for some 4.5 billion years.
If you say no, then you are positing an absolute while denying that absolutes exist.
What am I missing?
That you are talking about two different kinds\meanings of absolute and conflating one with the other. It is the logical fallacy of equivocation (equivocating on the meanings).
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2