Moral law

[bornagainathiest]

End,

 

Your argument (deregulate and what's left is grace) is nothing more than a rehash of Jesus' message of NT grace replacing OT law.

 

Therefore, your argument is another faith-based exercise in circular logic.

 

You believe by faith that grace is better law because the Bible (which you believe by faith) says so.

 

 

[Guest end3]

24 minutes ago, Blamtasticful said:

 

This to me isn't an argument. It is an admission of defeat. This is often what I call the Theistic Hail Mary Pass! 

Since the believer can't provide evidence for his position he argues AGAINST human ability to know anything at all and against rationality ITSELF.

He does this while using REASON in order to make an argument in the very first place lol.

At that point there is no point in him debating any further because he believes it is futile and so disqualifies himself from participating in an adult rational discussion because he believes humans are unable to do so.

 

You specifically say that the moral permutations are so great that we can't know morality, but by the same logic the permutations for how many possible kinds of universes we could be in would make it impossible to know that god is needed for the universe's existence. This is Sophistry not logic.

 

 

Well all I can really say is where is the evidence that that is true? Even if I grant you that humans have become less moral (which I don't, I believe the opposite) that still wouldn't in any way support the unfounded assertion that this is the result of some sort of "sin-layering." Maybe we could have evolved to be less moral for example. However thankfully we as humans are more compassionate of people continents away then we ever have been in the history of our species. This is all while church power in government has declined. 

 

Finally where in any of this have you demonstrated that a "Moral law" actually exists? I believe Morality exists and it exists independent of God. Regardless God's existence doesn't make morality objective; his existence is morally irrelevant. 

It's not an admission of defeat, but an admission of reality.  We have the ability to choose one way or another.......has nothing to do with defeat.  Be as rational and real as you would like, you have no clue what is ultimately moral for me nor even the cat next to you regardless of how rational you believe you are.  We have no consensus.   If you believe we do, please demonstrate so.  All I get from each of you is yes, morality is a function of humanity/culture, but that is so diverse, that morality is equally so.  So please don't lecture me sir.

 

See epigenetics in your spare time.....yes it does support "sin" layering.  For the same reason sin layering would work in a negative manner, church layering would work in a positive manner defining our generations from past generations, ....and that compassionate aspect you describe. 

 

I believe you were the one that defines a "Universal moral" from some place/locale?  You would wish to ask where mine comes from yet you use yours as fact?  Again, you are welcome to believe however  you desire.

 

Independent of a potential God, Christianity is made morality wonderfully objective......real.

 

 

[Guest end3]

20 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

End,

 

Your argument (deregulate and what's left is grace) is nothing more than a rehash of Jesus' message of NT grace replacing OT law.

 

Therefore, your argument is another faith-based exercise in circular logic.

 

You believe by faith that grace is better law because the Bible (which you believe by faith) says so.

 

 

No, I've given rationale regarding population, freedom, and purpose.....  faith is not my sole reason. 

[Blamtasticful]

2 minutes ago, end3 said:

It's not an admission of defeat, but an admission of reality.  We have the ability to choose way or another.......has nothing to do with defeat.  Be as rational an real as you would like, you have no clue what is ultimately moral for me nor even the cat next to you regardless of how rational you believe you are.  We have no consensus.   If you believe we do, please demonstrate so.  All I get from each of you is yes, morality is a function of humanity/culture, but that is so diverse, that morality is by equally so.  So please don't lecture me sir.

 

See epigenetics in your spare time.....yes it does support "sin" layering.  For the same reason sin layering would work in a negative manner, church layering would work in a positive manner defining our generations from past generations, ....and that compassionate aspect you describe. 

 

I believe you were the one that defines a "Universal moral" from some place/locale?  You would wish to ask where mine come from yet you use yours as fact?  Again, you are welcome to believe however  you desire.

 

Independent of a potential God, Christianity is made morality wonderfully objective......real.

 

 

 

After that I am almost tempted to say I rest my case lol. Epigenetics are a part of evolution  with no "sin-layering" required. Epigenetics has not been correlated with worsening moral behavior in any way shape or form. We are becoming more ethical. I would hope you knew consensus doesn't show what is true. What is true does not depend on the majority opinion. We have come to consensus or are coming towards consensus on what isn't moral generally speaking for many immoral practices of the past including slavery, child sacrifice, subjugation of women and racism. My point is that moral truth is like scientific truth. Morals were true before we discovered them in the same way scientific facts were. Consensus is a dumb argument.

 

Morality comes from the same universe that created brains through evolution. It comes from the laws of nature that created everything else that we know exists including the logic that upholds good argument. God is unnecessary. God being super powerful doesn't make his morality objective unless you think might makes right. So when he commands the slaughter of the innocent Amalekite children it is immoral not moral. 

[LogicalFallacy]

3 hours ago, end3 said:

Thanks.  It's not the only choice.  We are living with rules that are not grace as the only choice.  Again, my deal is in lieu of creating more rules and laws as the population increases, and more demand is placed on coexisting and cooperating, to choose grace......grace being essentially: we all do things the other does not comprehend and instead of being stickers for justice, just acknowledging, yep, we will do the best to understand each other and give rather than enforce rules. 

 

Again, it makes more sense to me that we cooperate in order to remain free and purpose driven rather that a stifled by regulations/law.   The US is a good example I think.  Seems like the US has always had ample room in the past 100+ years for people to spread out without much demand on cultural and environmental cooperation.   As the population and diversity has increased, this seems more an issue these days and is putting more pressure on people to get along.  I'm just and advocate of less regulation and more grace.  Especially in light of our ability to define such.  

 

Again, what I'm seeing with culture-defined morality is the inability to adequately define morality and also the potential for overregulation.

 

I would really like to know what you think in light of those points.

 

Thanks.

 

I think we are talking about two different things. You made the statement that there can be no objective/absolute morals without Gods grace. I'm not even sure why you've brought grace into a moral argument since grace in Christianity usually relates to god saving us from his vengeful alter ego..

 

The grace you are talking about is entirely human and subjective. You still have failed to provide justification for gods grace being the basis for objective morality.  

 

1 hour ago, end3 said:

I believe because humanity didn't or doesn't understand is specifically why grace was put in place. 

 

Again you are making a massive assumption that grace in the way you are expressing it actually exists without providing any justification for it. You are trying to hold an argument about morality and using grace as if its an obvious fact when its not.

 

26 minutes ago, end3 said:

It's not an admission of defeat, but an admission of reality.  We have the ability to choose one way or another.......has nothing to do with defeat.  Be as rational and real as you would like, you have no clue what is ultimately moral for me nor even the cat next to you regardless of how rational you believe you are.  We have no consensus.   If you believe we do, please demonstrate so.  All I get from each of you is yes, morality is a function of humanity/culture, but that is so diverse, that morality is equally so.  So please don't lecture me sir.

 

All we are getting from you is "you cannot adequately define morality, there is no consensus...therefore grace" How does grace define absolute moral values?

 

I stated earlier that I think it possible to define objective moral values - that's different from saying morality is diverse and subjective so please leave me out of "All I get from each of you"

 

Now you have still not answered the question of why grace is the answer to objective morality. You explained how you think it would work, I think you are wrong. But you haven't justified the grace as an answer to morality. Can you do that?

[Guest end3]

14 minutes ago, Blamtasticful said:

 

After that I am almost tempted to say I rest my case lol. Epigenetics are a part of evolution  with no "sin-layering" required. Epigenetics has not been correlated with worsening moral behavior in any way shape or form. We are becoming more ethical. I would hope you knew consensus doesn't show what is true. What is true does not depend on the majority opinion. We have come to consensus or are coming towards consensus on what isn't moral generally speaking for many immoral practices of the past including slavery, child sacrifice, subjugation of women and racism. My point is that moral truth is like scientific truth. Morals were true before we discovered them in the same way scientific facts were. Consensus is a dumb argument.

 

Morality comes from the same universe that created brains through evolution. It comes from the laws of nature that created everything else that we know exists including the logic that upholds good argument. God is unnecessary. God being super powerful doesn't make his morality objective unless you think might makes right. So when he commands the slaughter of the innocent Amalekite children it is immoral not moral. 

Let me try to understand.  Morality is a function of the universe as is evolution but is being discovered and defined in a scientific like manner?  Yet consensus or certainty is a dumb argument?  Just funny that the Bible alludes to epigenetic change way before science.  And being blunt, if the inheritance and teaching are put into children,  it's likely there for that generation and more......In order to stop or create a new humanity, you would have to wipe the kiddos out. 

[Blamtasticful]

3 minutes ago, end3 said:

Let me try to understand.  Morality is a function of the universe as is evolution but is being discovered and defined in a scientific like manner?  Yet consensus or certainty is a dumb argument?  Just funny that the Bible alludes to epigenetic change way before science.  And being blunt, if the inheritance and teaching are put into children,  it's likely there for that generation and more......In order to stop or create a new humanity, you would have to wipe the kiddos out. 

 

First I will congratulate you on correctly expressing my first point. Yes Morality is a function of the universe as is evolution and is being discovered and defined in a scientific like manner. I appreciate your accurate summation of my viewpoint. 

 

Since it is scientific then by definition consensus apart from the evidence doesn't matter! If someone said that daylight comes from an alien, science would give us independent refutation of this even if the wide majority of people though it was true. If everyone thought Racism or child sacrifice was moral it would still be immoral independent from if the majority of people didn't recognize it as such. 

 

My point on consensus was simply to point out that as a society we are becoming more moral which refutes your assertion that we have become more immoral. My point stands and yours is still not substantiated.

 

The Bible does not at any place reference epigenetics lol. Please do show us where it gives us an account of different gene expression with no apparent change in genetic structure? (That is epigenetics btw.) It does say that the earth shall not be moved and Martin Luther concurred. Do you really want to go down this road?

 

Where I will not congratulate you is on your disgusting view that in order to purge all evil from a society you must in your words "wipe the kiddos out." Fuck you. How dare you lecture anyone on morality?

[Guest end3]

12 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I think we are talking about two different things. You made the statement that there can be no objective/absolute morals without Gods grace. I'm not even sure why you've brought grace into a moral argument since grace in Christianity usually relates to god saving us from his vengeful alter ego..

 

The grace you are talking about is entirely human and subjective. You still have failed to provide justification for gods grace being the basis for objective morality.  

 

 

Again you are making a massive assumption that grace in the way you are expressing it actually exists without providing any justification for it. You are trying to hold an argument about morality and using grace as if its an obvious fact when its not.

 

 

All we are getting from you is "you cannot adequately define morality, there is no consensus...therefore grace" How does grace define absolute moral values?

 

I stated earlier that I think it possible to define objective moral values - that's different from saying morality is diverse and subjective so please leave me out of "All I get from each of you"

 

Now you have still not answered the question of why grace is the answer to objective morality. You explained how you think it would work, I think you are wrong. But you haven't justified the grace as an answer to morality. Can you do that?

Not trying to be obstinate LF, but from a very real and practical standpoint,  if you and I walked side by side daily, and I knew you as well as anyone could know someone, I couldn't define what it is that absolutely makes something right or wrong for you.  Nor you me.  There are too many things in our subjective experience that defines our morality.  I'm with you that there is the potential for humanity to define this somehow.  I personally believe that humanity has some purpose and that morality is placed upon humanity based on this unknown purpose.  And this is why I say because we don't know the purpose that we can't rationalize the OT law and hence grace (in a coexistence aspect).  So yes, I am saying that his morality is placed upon us and we don't know the rationale other than connecting the dots to see if it makes a picture.  Certainly some people don't see a picture.  To me, I see layered sin causing issues and then a distancing and loss of what was to be righteous.  And then I see God then enacting grace because of the layered generational sin. 

 

I think I am seeing some of the reasons for your frustration.  I wasn't intentionally trying to frustrate, it's a picture or theory that I have formed.   Your assertion could be equally a valid picture.  thanks for hanging in there.

[Guest end3]

5 minutes ago, Blamtasticful said:

 

First I will congratulate you on correctly expressing my first point. Yes Morality is a function of the universe as is evolution and is being discovered and defined in a scientific like manner. I appreciate your accurate summation of my viewpoint. 

 

Since it is scientific then by definition consensus apart from the evidence doesn't matter! If someone said that daylight comes from an alien, science would give us independent refutation of this even if the wide majority of people though it was true. If everyone thought Racism or child sacrifice was moral it would still be immoral independent from if the majority of people didn't recognize it as such. 

 

My point on consensus was simply to point out that as a society we are becoming more moral which refutes your assertion that we have become more immoral. My point stands and yours is still not substantiated.

 

The Bible does not at any place reference epigenetics lol. Please do show us where it gives us an account of different gene expression with no apparent change in genetic structure? (That is epigenetics btw.) It does say that the earth shall not be moved and Martin Luther concurred. Do you really want to go down this road?

 

Where I will not congratulate you is on your disgusting view that in order to purge all evil from a society you must in your words "wipe the kiddos out." Fuck you. How dare you lecture anyone on morality?

Not sure why you don't connect transgenerational epigenetics to behavior, i.e. "sins" of the father, but that's your deal.

To the former, wouldn't "truth" essentially be defined as scientific certainty?  How may we measure moral certainty please?

 

To the latter, I'm not up for wiping out kiddo's..... my favorite group of humanity is children.  Just saying I see the rationale.

[Blamtasticful]

14 minutes ago, end3 said:

Not sure why you don't connect transgenerational epigenetics to behavior, i.e. "sins" of the father, but that's your deal.

To the former, wouldn't "truth" essentially be defined as scientific certainty?  How may we measure moral certainty please?

 

To the latter, I'm not up for wiping out kiddo's..... my favorite group of humanity is children.  Just saying I see the rationale.

 

With that I will rest my case. I hope you take some time to think through some of your thinking and the objections that have been made. Only a believer could say he sees the rationale for exterminating of all non-combatants, women, and children of the Amalekites. 

[LogicalFallacy]

6 hours ago, end3 said:

To the latter, I'm not up for wiping out kiddo's..... my favorite group of humanity is children.  Just saying I see the rationale.

 

Have you read genesis 6-9? Numbers 31:17?

 

This is why I don't think Christianity or Judaism will ever be also to show objective morality. By what objective standard do you rationalize killing children? You have the problem of explaining how gods morality is better or any less subjective than human morality. (Or is your answer like you said in the previous post to me that because you can't explain gods purpose therefore you cannot rationalize OT law?)

 

Do you hold to William Lane Craig's divine command theory? (Whatever God commands is good because god is good?) If that is the case then there is no such thing as evil because all that is, is as god commands therefore it is all good. In which case the question becomes do you think there is such a thing as evil?

 

(PS I might have just solved the christian problem of answering the problem of evil. The answer is because god is good, and god controls all that is, therefore all that is is good, therefore there is no evil. Of course under that idea we cannot condemn hit or satan as evil which is problematic in itself.)

 

I'm still not clear on one thing - your posts come across to me as accepting subjective morality. But that doesn't make sense if you think that gods grace gives objective morality. So is your position that gods morality, however you define it, is objective, or subjective depending on our own experiences?

 

End3 said: 
 "if you and I walked side by side daily, and I knew you as well as anyone could know someone, I couldn't define what it is that absolutely makes something right or wrong for you.  Nor you me.  There are too many things in our subjective experience that defines our morality."

 

I think there will always be personal subjectivity.... in basically anything. That's different from saying that objective moral values can possibly be defined. These values would hold true despite our subjectivity. I also think they can be defined without need of grace or reference to any deity. We are probably not going to agree on that point, but that's my thoughts.

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Posted 8 hours ago

  8 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

End,

 

Your argument (deregulate and what's left is grace) is nothing more than a rehash of Jesus' message of NT grace replacing OT law.

 

Therefore, your argument is another faith-based exercise in circular logic.

 

You believe by faith that grace is better law because the Bible (which you believe by faith) says so.

 

 

No, I've given rationale regarding population, freedom, and purpose.....  faith is not my sole reason. 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

My bad then.  

 

Sorry, I thought you were making an entirely faith-based argument, End.

 

Since that's not the case, I'll proceed on the assumption that you are making an argument that doesn't rely on faith in anything religious, supernatural or spiritual.

 

That your faith in the thing you call grace is a purely secular thing.

 

That you view this grace to be some aspect of the human mind.

 

So are you arguing that this one, single aspect of human psychology is the foundation of all human morality?

 

 

[Guest end3]

9 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

 

With that I will rest my case. I hope you take some time to think through some of your thinking and the objections that have been made. Only a believer could say he sees the rationale for exterminating of all non-combatants, women, and children of the Amalekites. 

My question is B, you say that morality is a function of the universe.....does this include plants and animals sharing the same morality as humans?  Why or why not please.

Just off the cuff, I've noticed adopted children not behaving congruent to the environment they are placed.   Then there is research that suggest children are pretty much who they are by a very young age.  And then there is the epigenetic research regarding inherited changes from the environment of the parents.  Granted I'm certainly no expert in any of these fields, but one might infer that children are wired to do what the generations before them have done.  On one hand I see you agreeing with this because you say morality is a function of the universe/nature, but on the other hand denying that this is the case.

 

 

[midniterider]

14 hours ago, end3 said:

I believe because humanity didn't or doesn't understand is specifically why grace was put in place.  Don't know how new your are to this site B, but I'm a believer that years and years of not adhering to what God considers just, i.e. the Law,  has lead humanity to a place of no return with regard to understanding what is truly just......and it's changed us as a whole such that God recognized this and set forth an agreement where despite our shortcomings, we would still be "saved".  And some of us on this site have had discussions about behaviors changing us physically....and our progeny.   So essentially, I'm a believer that our "sins" layered on top of each other for generations have lead us far away from any idea of righteousness that may have been preserved.  But/and I believe this is why God says do not quit meeting together......because if negative influence changes us, then one would think positive influence would change us as well.  For example, we send our children to school and moral places rather than sending them to learn to steal and lie. 

 

Now that was depressing.

[Blamtasticful]

3 hours ago, end3 said:

My question is B, you say that morality is a function of the universe.....does this include plants and animals sharing the same morality as humans?  Why or why not please.

Just off the cuff, I've noticed adopted children not behaving congruent to the environment they are placed.   Then there is research that suggest children are pretty much who they are by a very young age.  And then there is the epigenetic research regarding inherited changes from the environment of the parents.  Granted I'm certainly no expert in any of these fields, but one might infer that children are wired to do what the generations before them have done.  On one hand I see you agreeing with this because you say morality is a function of the universe/nature, but on the other hand denying that this is the case.

 

 

Well I guess I lied about resting my case since you would like a clarification. I think this can appropriately called a red herring or a distraction that doesn't depend upon the existence of god or not. Basically you are engaging in the topic of nature vs. nurture. This debate doesn't require a god one way or the other. Our morality can be a product of the universe from nature (in your particular example epigenetics) or nurture but both still come from the same universe. 

 

Actually certain animal species do seem to show some limited primitive forms of moral thinking in structuring their clans and what not. It is fascinating for sure but let's assume in this case morality is just limited to humans. How would that not make it objective? I could say that photosynthesis is a phenomena exclusive to plants. Does this mean it isn't objective? Of course not. Just because something is contextual doesn't mean it isn't an objective phenomenon. 

 

If you are genuinely curious where I am coming from my ideas come from the idea that abiogenesis "might" again I say might have something to do with the laws of physics itself. It is an interesting idea but regardless we are all products of the Big Bang and morality is a phenomena that arises from this as well. You might even call it an emergent phenomenon. 

[LogicalFallacy]

10 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Posted 8 hours ago

  8 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

End,

 

Your argument (deregulate and what's left is grace) is nothing more than a rehash of Jesus' message of NT grace replacing OT law.

 

Therefore, your argument is another faith-based exercise in circular logic.

 

You believe by faith that grace is better law because the Bible (which you believe by faith) says so.

 

 

No, I've given rationale regarding population, freedom, and purpose.....  faith is not my sole reason. 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

My bad then.  

 

Sorry, I thought you were making an entirely faith-based argument, End.

 

Since that's not the case, I'll proceed on the assumption that you are making an argument that doesn't rely on faith in anything religious, supernatural or spiritual.

 

That your faith in the thing you call grace is a purely secular thing.

 

That you view this grace to be some aspect of the human mind.

 

So are you arguing that this one, single aspect of human psychology is the foundation of all human morality?

 

 

 

@End3: What BAA has asked here ties into my question on what you think about morality, your position on it. BAA is trying to nail down the grace aspect of your position, while I'm trying to work out if you think this is objective or subjective.

 

Can you please answer both our relative posts several ones above?

 

(Curses for no post numbers!) MODS ADMIN, we want, nay, we need post numbers!