PDN wrote: » Who said He has no limits? The Christian position is that God limits Himself. Therefore He cannot sin, nor can He lie.
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.
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.
CerebralCortex wrote: » I'm told by Christians to suppose that Christianity is logical. It fails that test from a number of directions.
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.
CerebralCortex wrote: » Which is an logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity. Which is an logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.
CerebralCortex wrote: » I fail to see how that is logically possible. It may be Christianly possible but that doesn't count.
CerebralCortex wrote: » Which is an logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.
I've no trouble grasping eternity. You've hijacked it though and turned it into a logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.
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"?
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?
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?
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?
CerebralCortex wrote: » Because he created the actions not us. He has all of the power on actions or else Il n'est pas omnipotent.
CerebralCortex wrote: » Because he, limitless being, would have imposed a limit on himself, is this not absurd?
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 wrote: » Because he created the actions, not us. He has all of the power on actions or else Il n'est pas omnipotent.
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.
CerebralCortex wrote: » I never said it was.
Because he, limitless being, would have imposed a limit on himself, is this not absurd?
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]
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.
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.
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.
Wicknight wrote: » Have you ever genuinely met a atheist who insists on moral relativity?
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.
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.
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.
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.
ISAW wrote: » Apparently you have.
ISAW wrote: » How can one believe in moral absolutes and subscribe to the above subjective/relative position?
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?
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?
Wicknight wrote: » I was unaware that Playboy had changed his position from when he said
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?
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]
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.
A subjectivist, clearly, can be either an absolutist or a relativist.
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.
ISAW wrote: » How can you prove moral absolutes are subjective and not objective?
ISAW wrote: » Let us get this straight are you claiming you believe in a moral universals and moral absolutes ?
ISAW wrote: » You have expressed the opinion that morality is a consequence of biological evolution
ISAW wrote: » That is a moral relativist perspective
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
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.
ISAW wrote: » In short how can you say "there are no objective morals" and also say "there are moral absolutes"?
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?
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.
From your linkMoral 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
ISAW wrote: » But unless you claim to the the source of all absolute morals you will eventually differ from the absolute.
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.
ISAW wrote: » So then what is right if it isn't just how you feel?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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]
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.
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.
Morbert wrote: » "Always has been and always will be" implies the universe is embedded in some time dimension, and exists forever.
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.
