Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

Who said He has no limits? The Christian position is that God limits Himself. Therefore He cannot sin, nor can He lie.

Which is an logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. You keep making this logical error. Omnipotence does not necessitate having control over everything. So an omnipotent God could force everything to be done exactly as He chooses - or He could create something that is genuinely random, or that possesses genuine free will.

Which is an logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.

PDN wrote: »

Also, you keep falling into the error of talking about God as if he is limited by our perspective of time. The word 'predict' is meaningless when applied to God, because to 'predict' necessitates there being a future. But for an Eternal being there would be no past or future. Everything would be present.


The fact that you struggle to comprehend Eternity, or that you keep falling into the same errors, does not have any bearing on whether Christianity is logical.

I've no trouble grasping eternity. You've hijacked it though and turned it into a logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.

ISAW

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'm told by Christians to suppose that Christianity is logical. It fails that test from a number of directions.

So you keep saying but you fail to recapulate these arguments.
You provide to long lists of thenm but don't say which on these lists you agree with so I have to assume you agree with all of them.

the few you do rehearse are not shown to be true e.g. the "Omnipotent/omniscient God means there can't be free will" one and the "Cant have random events if God exists" one

http://www.gradesaver.com/the-consolation-of-philosophy/study-guide/section5/

Philosophy answers that any chance event that occurs had its own set of hidden causes, whether or not they are perceived by human beings. Whether or not these causes appear to have relation to each other, they are nevertheless governed by Providence.

Boethius then asks how can there be free will in this close-knit chain of events. To this Philosophy asserts that there must indeed be free will, because no rational nature could exist without it.
...
The idea of foreknowledge and Providence have been debated for centuries. This argument was even referred to in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. There is no reason to believe that this debate will cease anytime soon.

What is at issue is a central philosophical question of whether or not the world is predetermined or subject to chance.

psycjay

PDN wrote: »

Who said He has no limits? The Christian position is that God limits Himself. Therefore He cannot sin, nor can He lie.

If one has the capacity to limit themselves then they have the capacity to unlimit themselves and are therefore limitless. You are saying god cannot do wrong because he doesn't let himself. If that's case it's a question of will not ability.

ISAW

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Which is an logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.



Which is an logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.

So you say but where is you proof?

Morbert

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I fail to see how that is logically possible. It may be Christianly possible but that doesn't count.

If something is logically impossible, it means there is some contradiction in the logic. What is the contradiction in believing an omnipotent god knows of our actions, and has allowed us to determine those actions?

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Which is an logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.

Then don't just assert it. Show us why it is a logical absurdity.

Why is it logically absurd for an omnipotent being to say, "From henceforth I choose to do x and not to do y"?

I've no trouble grasping eternity. You've hijacked it though and turned it into a logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.

Again, don't just assert it. Show us why it is a logical absurdity.

Why is it logically absurd for an omnipotent being to choose to create something that is random or which possesses free will?

Surely it would be logically absurd for an omnipotent being to be unable to create randomness or free will?

I've no trouble grasping eternity. You've hijacked it though and turned it into a logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.

So why is it a logical absurdity for an Eternal being not to be bound by our concepts of past, present and future?

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

Why is it logically absurd for an omnipotent being to say, "From henceforth I choose to do x and not to do y"?

I never said it was.

PDN wrote: »

Again, don't just assert it. Show us why it is a logical absurdity.

Why is it logically absurd for an omnipotent being to choose to create something that is random or which possesses free will?

Surely it would be logically absurd for an omnipotent being to be unable to create randomness or free will?

Because he, limitless being, would have imposed a limit on himself, is this not absurd? Is it less likely, I ask you, that you need the properties to support your world-view? I would contend it is. We know certain things about the human condition and you're bending things to a belief that shouldn't survive contradictory evidence.

PDN wrote: »

So why is it a logical absurdity for an Eternal being not to be bound by our concepts of past, present and future?

I never said he was bound by those things, I'm doesn't matter, he's not bound at all! That's the point I'm trying to make. You can't have both ways.

CerebralCortex

Morbert wrote: »

If something is logically impossible, it means there is some contradiction in the logic. What is the contradiction in believing an omnipotent god knows of our actions, and has allowed us to determine those actions?

Because he created the actions, not us. He has all of the power on actions or else Il n'est pas omnipotent.

antiskeptic

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Because he created the actions not us. He has all of the power on actions or else Il n'est pas omnipotent.

That's not logic. That's word salad.

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Because he, limitless being, would have imposed a limit on himself, is this not absurd?

Not absurd at all. No more absurd than going to an all-you-can-eat restaurant but then choosing not to eat everything.

I never said he was bound by those things, I'm doesn't matter, he's not bound at all! That's the point I'm trying to make. You can't have both ways.

Then stop contradicting yourself. If He isn't bound by our concepts of past, present or future then stop committing logical absurdities by presenting us with arguments that depend on words like 'before' or 'predict'.

However, even though I think atheism is a mistaken notion, I'm happy to keep addressing your points rather than make dismissive comments about atheism being illogical anyway.

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Because he created the actions not us. He has all of the power on actions or else Il n'est pas omnipotent.

So an omnipotent being is bound and limited to predestining everything and is incapable of allowing anyone to act freely? Is that what you're saying?

Morbert

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Because he created the actions, not us. He has all of the power on actions or else Il n'est pas omnipotent.

But God didn't create the actions. We did. And he has the power to determine what we do, but he chooses not to.

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

I, personally, am a reductionist in this case. I believe the way we make decisions can indeed be reduced to the laws of physics. But Christianity posits a supernatural soul that cannot be reduced to simpler components. There is no algorithm churning input into output. The way decisions are arrived at is simply the self-arbitration of the individual.



It is not determinism per se that is in question, but instead, who is doing the determining. We all agree that the reel has some form of atemporal existence. But the question is whether or not the reel prescribes the characters' actions, or merely reflects their actions. Christians would claim the latter. This is consistent if the characters have some facet of existence that transcends the chemicals and laws that the reel is made of: if they are more than just images formed by chemicals and laws.

Absolutely agree with this breakdown....

lmaopml

I would add that some Christians believe that not only can we reflect the reel, but we are also not affected by the reels foreknowledge, but free to act on our own will....

That's what we mean when we say we are created in God's image. He raises us up by virtue of our soul and spirit.

ISAW

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I never said it was.

So you agree it is possible for an omnipotent being to chose not to do things he is capable of doing? That is contradicting your earlier position.

Because he, limitless being, would have imposed a limit on himself, is this not absurd?

Because God decides to act reasonably? If God just threw out logic reason and morality and /or redefine them every minute that would be absurd. But again you are approaching the Islamic kind of view of "God can redefine logic or absurdity" Christians believe god won't do that and won't act against reason.

Here for example is the current Pope's view on it:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]

I never said he was bound by those things, I'm doesn't matter, he's not bound at all! That's the point I'm trying to make. You can't have both ways.

So if I have a gun in my hand and it is pointing at your head and I have the ability to shoot you dead I am "limiting my potential" by choosing to not shoot you? surely it is absurd to suggest everyone with the power to shoot other people but who chose not to do so really don't or can't have that power because of their choice not to use it?

lmaopml wrote: »

That's what we mean when we say we are created in God's image. He raises us up by virtue of our soul and spirit.

See above about the difference between Christians and Muslims on the "logos" side of the argument.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

It is not determinism per se that is in question, but instead, who is doing the determining. We all agree that the reel has some form of atemporal existence. But the question is whether or not the reel prescribes the characters' actions, or merely reflects their actions. Christians would claim the latter. This is consistent if the characters have some facet of existence that transcends the chemicals and laws that the reel is made of: if they are more than just images formed by chemicals and laws.

The problem for that is the eternity of the reel itself. The reel can be seen as a reflection of God's knowledge, which along with God is eternal, ever has been ever will.

So even if we say that the agents/actors can transcend this universe they cannot, by definition transcend the fact of the eternal nature of God's knowledge, ie they cannot transcend the eternal nature of the reel itself, the fact that is always has been and always will be fixed as it is, all frames past present and future determined.

To have free will the actors have to transcend the constraints of the reel to the point where they can determine what the reel actually contains.

But because the reel is on par with God's knowledge, it is in essence untranscendable, since nothing can transcend above God or his knowledge by definition.

This is why I said a few years ago in the last big discussion of this topic, logically the only thing that could determine the reel is God himself. But that is branching some what off topic of this thread, probably better to stick with the question of whether the actors can determine the reel themselves and thus have free will.

CerebralCortex

Wicknight wrote: »

This is why I said a few years ago in the last big discussion of this topic, logically the only thing that could determine the reel is God himself. But that is branching some what off topic of this thread, probably better to stick with the question of whether the actors can determine the reel themselves and thus have free will.

Well put. Perhaps we could look at the modern cognitive sciences and see where they fail to show that we don't have free will. This is challenge to those who claim we have contra causal free will. Show me 1.) how the mind is separate from the body and that 2.) the mind isn't who I really am and I'll gladly open up to the other possibilities.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Have you ever genuinely met a atheist who insists on moral relativity?

Apparently you have.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51176185&postcount=34

Look Wicknight, morality is relative. To assume that one moral system is superior to another is arrogant. Relgious people telling us what is right and wrong is just as arrogant as us telling them what is right and wrong.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52340999&postcount=140

Morality is a relative human construct. If God has His own objective morality then he's a horrible tyrant and I'd defy him anyway.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59018238&postcount=172

A universal morality becomes rather pointless when one has to subjectively pick which moral system to consider the universal one...
Believing that there is in fact a universal moral system that we should know seems to do more harm than good. It leads to a stituation where people think their subjective choices are backed up by an all powerful (and never wrong) authority.

How can one believe in moral absolutes and subscribe to the above subjective/relative position?

Indeed you already said you believe you are always right . Have you become on of these people who think your subjective choice is backed up by a never wrong absolute morality?

ISAW

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well put. Perhaps we could look at the modern cognitive sciences and see where they fail to show that we don't have free will.

Isn't trying to prove a double negative a "logical absurdity" for you? Are you just using bad grammar or are you making a logical statement where double negatives resolve to a positive i.e. that they "don't show we don't have resolves to "show we have" free will?

Also given the philosophy of science post logical positivism whish suggests science does not verify but opreferable falsifies ( as only one falsification is necessary to disprove something) and if it fails to falsify it then you can not say science has disproved free will can you?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Apparently you have.

I was unaware that Playboy had changed his position from when he said

For me personally the reason I am agnostic and not an atheist is because I cant convince myself that millions of people will devote their lives to a religion unless they experience something God-like in their lives.


Isn't search great

ISAW wrote: »

How can one believe in moral absolutes and subscribe to the above subjective/relative position?

I've already explained that subjective does not equal relative. If you refuse to accept that then can you explain why there is any point continuing to discuss this with you?

ISAW wrote: »

Indeed you already said you believe you are always right . Have you become on of these people who think your subjective choice is backed up by a never wrong absolute morality?

Again you display your inability to actually consider what subjective morality is like, you are incapable of understanding that when I say I am right I am not making a comparison between my opinion and an objective moral standard, because I do not believe such a thing exists.

At this point the discussion is like trying to explain colour to a blind person who insists no one else can be able to see colour either.

CerebralCortex

ISAW wrote: »

Isn't trying to prove a double negative a "logical absurdity" for you? Are you just using bad grammar or are you making a logical statement where double negatives resolve to a positive i.e. that they "don't show we don't have resolves to "show we have" free will?

Also given the philosophy of science post logical positivism whish suggests science does not verify but opreferable falsifies ( as only one falsification is necessary to disprove something) and if it fails to falsify it then you can not say science has disproved free will can you?

I'm saying the evidence as it stands shows there is nothing transcendent or otherwise necessary in my decision process. The same goes for person hood. An example of this evidence is the split brain experiment. Briefly it concerns a patient who was treated for surgery for epilepsy where his Corpus Callosum was severed. You can view the experiment here.

We also have a split brain with one half atheist and one half theist. On this experiment I have less information. Read up some stuff by VS Ramachandran if you need to verify.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I was unaware that Playboy had changed his position from when he said

and I was unaware "us" meant "atheists and Agnostics" and not just atheists
The point stands however atheists can be moral relativists and many are which is what you were asking me.

I've already explained that subjective does not equal relative. If you refuse to accept that then can you explain why there is any point continuing to discuss this with you?

How can you prove moral absolutes are subjective and not objective?

Let us get this straight are you claiming you believe in a moral universals and moral absolutes ?
Moral universalism is objective. One cant be subjective and universal or subjective and absolute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Meta-ethical relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments is not objective. Justifications for moral judgments are not universal, but are instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people.[1] The meta-ethical relativist might say "It's moral to me, because I believe it is".

You have expressed the opinion that morality is a consequence of biological evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism#Morality_and_evolution
Some evolutionary biologists believe that morality is a natural phenomenon that evolves by natural selection.[12] In this case, morality is defined as the set of relative social practices that promote the survival and successful reproduction of the species, or even multiple cooperating species.[13]

That is a moral relativist perspective

Again you display your inability to actually consider what subjective morality is like, you are incapable of understanding that when I say I am right I am not making a comparison between my opinion and an objective moral standard, because I do not believe such a thing exists.

If you don't believe an objective moral standard exist and yet claim there are moral absolutes you could be an ethical subjectivist since

Brandt, Richard (1959). Ethical Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. p. 154

A subjectivist, clearly, can be either an absolutist or a relativist.

But then being a absolutist you would then have to be a universalist which is objectivist and you said you were not objectivist so it seems you are back to contradicting yourself.

In short how can you say "there are no objective morals" and also say "there are moral absolutes"?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

and I was unaware "us" meant "atheists and Agnostics" and not just atheists
The point stands however atheists can be moral relativists and many are which is what you were asking me.

I never said they couldn't and if you read my response to Morbet I in fact say they can. So what was the point again?

ISAW wrote: »

How can you prove moral absolutes are subjective and not objective?

If they are my opinion without claim to objective standards, then by definition they are subjective.

I think Jim Carey is the funniest person alive, full stop! is a subjective statement. It is also an absolute one.

ISAW wrote: »

Let us get this straight are you claiming you believe in a moral universals and moral absolutes ?

From your link
Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them.

Imagine I say "In my opinion rape is never justified or moral, no matter what the consequences of the rape are, or the intentions behind the rape"

• Can you explain to me how I have not made an absolute moral statement?
  
• Can you also explain to me how it is not a subjective statement.

I think you will find it is a subjective statement and an absolute statement, and there is nothing wrong or contradictory in it. In fact people make statements like this all the time.

ISAW wrote: »

You have expressed the opinion that morality is a consequence of biological evolution

Sort of, I expressed the opinion that morality is a product of the human brain, who's develop is shaped in part by biological evolution.

ISAW wrote: »

That is a moral relativist perspective

I can be. It isn't my perspective. The relativist perspective would be that since evolution shapes morality you can't say that someone without the evolved instinct to say not murder their children has done anything wrong if they murder their children.

That is not a position I take, as I've already explained to you. I am a subjective absolutist, not a subjective relativist.

ISAW wrote: »

If you don't believe an objective moral standard exist and yet claim there are moral absolutes you could be an ethical subjectivist since

Brandt, Richard (1959). Ethical Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. p. 154

Richard Brandt took a particular view of morality, a similar line as Sam Harris, that morality should be what ever maximizes public good.

And like Harris I disagree with him on that. Unless you are asserting that Brandt originally defined these terms I'm not sure of the relevance of your quote.

ISAW wrote: »

But then being a absolutist you would then have to be a universalist which is objectivist and you said you were not objectivist so it seems you are back to contradicting yourself.

Only if we accept your position, which I don't because it is wrong. See my comment above about the opinion that rape is always wrong. See if you can find the contradiction in it.

ISAW wrote: »

In short how can you say "there are no objective morals" and also say "there are moral absolutes"?

Because moral absolutes can be defined personally and subjectively. "I feel it is always wrong to cheat on my wife" is an absolute statement. It is also an entirely subjective one. Can you please point out the inherent contradiction in the statement?

A subjective relativist statement would be "I feel most of the time it is wrong to cheat on my wife, but sometimes it might be ok in certain circumstances, for example if I'm out of the country"

You seem to be spectacularly missing this point, I can't help feel on purpose as it has been explained ad nausaum to you.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I never said they couldn't and if you read my response to Morbet I in fact say they can. So what was the point again?

That you asked if i had ever met an atheist who is a relativist. I believed pointed to several but if one was an agnostic I think the fact that relativist atheists exist is establoished.

If they are my opinion without claim to objective standards, then by definition they are subjective.

I think Jim Carey is the funniest person alive, full stop! is a subjective statement. It is also an absolute one.

Absolute as in - "Always true"? how so?

From your link
Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them.

Imagine I say "In my opinion rape is never justified or moral, no matter what the consequences of the rape are, or the intentions behind the rape"

• Can you explain to me how I have not made an absolute moral statement?
  
• Can you also explain to me how it is not a subjective statement.

I think you will find it is a subjective statement and an absolute statement, and there is nothing wrong or contradictory in it. In fact people make statements like this all the time.

Yes people can say things which are true and absolute. The peoplem seems to be you believe your subjective morals are always right. What is the difference between that anbd bigotry and how can you demonstrate you are always right.

Say for example you state "rape is always right" it is subjective but not absolute since it is false.

Sort of, I expressed the opinion that morality is a product of the human brain, who's develop is shaped in part by biological evolution.

"sort of" "in part" hedging now are we? What happened to you being always right?
In fact what you stated was "is a consequence of"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72410879&postcount=320

brain development is a consequence of biological evolution, and that morality is related to the brain. Evolution of humans explains why certain moral notions exist in all humans across all cultures.

This is saying evolutionary biology determines morality. the waffle you introduced about cultural determinism has nothing to do with that.

I can be. It isn't my perspective. The relativist perspective would be that since evolution shapes morality you can't say that someone without the evolved instinct to say not murder their children has done anything wrong if they murder their children.

the relativist perspective would be "there is no absolute right and wrong. It is all subjective."

That is not a position I take, as I've already explained to you. I am a subjective absolutist, not a subjective relativist.

How can you be subjective and absolute? The only way of being like that is if you are the moral authority itself.

Richard Brandt took a particular view of morality, a similar line as Sam Harris, that morality should be what ever maximizes public good.

that is utilitarianism not subjectivism.

And like Harris I disagree with him on that. Unless you are asserting that Brandt originally defined these terms I'm not sure of the relevance of your quote.

That you most be one or the other and then we can eliminate the non relativist option by contradiction. That leaves the relativist.

Only if we accept your position, which I don't because it is wrong. See my comment above about the opinion that rape is always wrong. See if you can find the contradiction in it.

I am not surprised there that you run back to depending on the bigotry argument of always being right. Of course you pick something everyone will agree with and say that happens to be your opinion. There wont be any contradiction with absolute morals isf you happen to agree with them. But unless you claim to the the source of all absolute morals you will eventually differ from the absolute. You can define "always wrong" as "what I happen to believe" but you are mixing up what you believe with a universal absolute wrong.

Because moral absolutes can be defined personally and subjectively. "I feel it is always wrong to cheat on my wife" is an absolute statement. It is also an entirely subjective one. Can you please point out the inherent contradiction in the statement?

It isnt wrong because you feel it! If you felt it was always right to cheat would it then become right? So then what is right if it isn't just how you feel?

A subjective relativist statement would be "I feel most of the time it is wrong to cheat on my wife, but sometimes it might be ok in certain circumstances, for example if I'm out of the country"

And if you stated that would how you feel then become what is right and the relativist suddenly be "right".
It seems you believe that other people can have right opinion but only when those opinions are identical to yours. What is the difference between that and bigotry?

You seem to be spectacularly missing this point, I can't help feel on purpose as it has been explained ad nausaum to you.

Of course what you feel is the absolute definition of right ?

Zombrex

This is going on way to long so lets nip this in the bud as much as we can, it is a side topic to the main topic.

ISAW wrote: »

I am not surprised there that you run back to depending on the bigotry argument of always being right. Of course you pick something everyone will agree with and say that happens to be your opinion. There wont be any contradiction with absolute morals isf you happen to agree with them.

That isn't the contradiction I'm talking about.

You claim you cannot be a subjectivist (believe that morality is only a reflection of opinion and exists only as opinion) and an absolutist (apply moral laws absolutely independently to circumstance or specific context) because this is a contradiction.

Ok, the statement "In my opinion rape is always wrong" is both subjective and absolutist. Please point out the contradiction.

ISAW wrote: »

But unless you claim to the the source of all absolute morals you will eventually differ from the absolute.

Of course you are the source of all absolute morals. That is what subjectivism is. Morality is only opinion. I am the source of all my moral opinions.

Again you demonstrate your inability to imagine what subjectivism actually is.

ISAW wrote: »

You can define "always wrong" as "what I happen to believe" but you are mixing up what you believe with a universal absolute wrong.

I'm not mixing up anything, you are. You are viewing subjectivism in the context of objectivism because you seem unable to distinguish between the two.

ISAW wrote: »

So then what is right if it isn't just how you feel?

Subjectivism ISAW! Seriously! What is right is only what you think is right. Right and wrong are only opinions. Nothing else exists. There is no objective standard for what is right in subjectivism.

So why when attempting to point out the contradiction in a subjective context are you appealing to objectivism?

If you cannot understand that there is nothing we have to discuss because you cannot imagine what we are talking about, irrespective of whether you believe it correct or

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

This is going on way to long so lets nip this in the bud as much as we can, it is a side topic to the main topic.

That isn't the contradiction I'm talking about.

What that you may sometimes actually be right - yes it is see below.

You claim you cannot be a subjectivist (believe that morality is only a reflection of opinion and exists only as opinion) and an absolutist (apply moral laws absolutely independently to circumstance or specific context) because this is a contradiction.

Ok, the statement "In my opinion rape is always wrong" is both subjective and absolutist. Please point out the contradiction.

Nope I claim one can not always for absolutely every statement be subjective and absolute. Of course you can pick out statement on which you and Christians agree. Why don't you pick one "moral absolute" on which you don't agree with the Christianity for example and let us examine if it is absolute or just your subjective opinion.

Of course you are the source of all absolute morals. That is what subjectivism is. Morality is only opinion. I am the source of all my moral opinions.

then you are not absolutist since you return to yourself and not an absolute objective standard. Tell me then if your opinion was that Pi=3 would you be right or wrong?

Again you demonstrate your inability to imagine what subjectivism actually is.

when it comes to you and morals is it basically the same as moral relativism since you use no external reference and ultimately only judge morals relative to your opinion of what is right and wrong.

I'm not mixing up anything, you are. You are viewing subjectivism in the context of objectivism because you seem unable to distinguish between the two.

Quite clearly an absolute requires an objective standard. just because you happen to be right when you say rape is wrong does not make you the source of right and wrong. You could just as easily say "rape is ok2 and it would be wriong according to objective absolute standards.

Subjectivism ISAW! Seriously! What is right is only what you think is right. Right and wrong are only opinions. Nothing else exists. There is no objective standard for what is right in subjectivism.

Aha! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration

What is the difference between your subjective point of view and that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value?

So why when attempting to point out the contradiction in a subjective context are you appealing to objectivism?

Because appeals to subjective moral standards are relativist and appeals to natural law and objective standards are absolute.

If you cannot understand that there is nothing we have to discuss because you cannot imagine what we are talking about, irrespective of whether you believe it correct or

It isn't a question of whether I believe Pi is 3 or not. It can be measured against a yardstick and defined as a ratio. If I think or you think it is any different that won't change the value. Of course we might also happen to believe the correct value. That does not mean Pi ios the value it is because you have a personal belief that it is that value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism

Ethical subjectivism is the meta-ethical belief that ethical sentences reduce to factual statements about the attitudes and/or conventions of individual people, or that any ethical sentence implies an attitude held by someone. As such, it is a form of moral relativism in which the truth of moral claims is relative to the attitudes of individuals[1]

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem for that is the eternity of the reel itself. The reel can be seen as a reflection of God's knowledge, which along with God is eternal, ever has been ever will.

So even if we say that the agents/actors can transcend this universe they cannot, by definition transcend the fact of the eternal nature of God's knowledge, ie they cannot transcend the eternal nature of the reel itself, the fact that is always has been and always will be fixed as it is, all frames past present and future determined.

To have free will the actors have to transcend the constraints of the reel to the point where they can determine what the reel actually contains.

But because the reel is on par with God's knowledge, it is in essence untranscendable, since nothing can transcend above God or his knowledge by definition.

This is why I said a few years ago in the last big discussion of this topic, logically the only thing that could determine the reel is God himself. But that is branching some what off topic of this thread, probably better to stick with the question of whether the actors can determine the reel themselves and thus have free will.

"Always has been and always will be" implies the universe is embedded in some time dimension, and exists forever. Instead, it is supposed that God's realm is atemporal (even "realm" is technically inappropriate because it implies a physical space). God isn't eternally embedded in some time frame. Time (and space) itself exists by his will.

So we must talk about it in an atemporal sense. The existence of the reel is by God's will, and the contents of the reel is by our will, even if we experience the contents in an ordered, timelike fashion. This means the objections based on the "eternity" of the reel don't apply.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Nope I claim one can not always for absolutely every statement be subjective and absolute. Of course you can pick out statement on which you and Christians agree. Why don't you pick one "moral absolute" on which you don't agree with the Christianity for example and let us examine if it is absolute or just your subjective opinion.

Agreeing with Christians? What are you talking about? That is utterly irrelevant, as I'm sure you know.

How about this "In my opinion a consensual homosexual relationship is always moral"

Subjective and absolute. Contradiction please.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

"Always has been and always will be" implies the universe is embedded in some time dimension, and exists forever.

Not the universe itself, but the knowledge of the universe. God is eternal and omniscient. He knows everything, always. Thus the reel can be thought of as a snapshot of the entire determined universe that is eternal as being part of God's eternal nature. .

The real issue is if the future can be determined by actors in it. If God's knowledge is eternal and omniscient then the future is never undetermined.

The easiest way to think about it is with a bit of maths. x=1. Imagine that is the Einstein loaf representing a particular universe (as opposed to x=2 or x=134) that is alway the case, it is an eternal property. Fixed, unchanging. Now, can x change or be undetermined?

Not without changing the underlying definition.

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

Not the universe itself, but the knowledge of the universe. God is eternal and omniscient. He knows everything, always. Thus the reel can be thought of as a snapshot of the entire determined universe that is eternal as being part of God's eternal nature. .

The real issue is if the future can be determined by actors in it. If God's knowledge is eternal and omniscient then the future is never undetermined.

The easiest way to think about it is with a bit of maths. x=1. Imagine that is the Einstein loaf representing a particular universe (as opposed to x=2 or x=134) that is alway the case, it is an eternal property. Fixed, unchanging. Now, can x change or be undetermined?

Not without changing the underlying definition.

But remember that determinism isn't in question. It's who is doing the determining that is being asked. Is it by God's will that x=1, or by our will? I see no problem in asserting it is by our will that x=1 if we are allowed to assume our spirit is supernatural. The existence of both x and our will is determined by god, but the fact that x=1 is determined by us. Our experience of x is ordered and temporal, but the relationship between our will and x is atemporal.