Roots of Human Morality

[kamui]

That which you’ve derived from the initial knowledge: what is your pay-off for believing its validity?

There is none. besides being consistent and, well, valid.
Truth doesn’t need to be advantageous to be true.

[quote]
Why do you believe what you believe is true?[/quote]

I don’t believe that much actually.
Like you, i try to avoid unnecessary beliefs whenever it’s possible.

But there is a point where disbelief becomes counter-productive, and more “naive” than belief would be.

For example, it makes more sense to believe that there is a (relatively intelligible) world than to disbelieve it as a possible illusion.

[ephrem]

[quote]kamui wrote:

That which you’ve derived from the initial knowledge: what is your pay-off for believing its validity?

There is none. besides being consistent and, well, valid.
Truth doesn’t need to be advantageous to be true.

Why do you believe what you believe is true?[/quote]

I don’t believe that much actually.
Like you, i try to avoid unnecessary beliefs whenever it’s possible.

But there is a point where disbelief becomes counter-productive, and more “naive” than belief would be.

For example, it makes more sense to believe that there is a (relatively intelligible) world than to disbelieve it as a possible illusion.

You certainly don’t come across as someone who’s emotionally invested in his beliefs.

Was just wondering. Thanks!

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

I’m honestly baffled why intelligent men, like you and kamui, ignore a simple question like, “how do you know what you believe is true?”, and instead build an intellectual house of cards designed to circumvent the answer to that question.[/quote]

Actually, my own house of card is built on this very question.
Just like Tiribulus castle-in-the-sky of cards.

You have faith that what you believe is true? With all the knowledge you have it makes the most sense? What is your answer to this question?
[/quote]

That’s interesting in the sense that your the one who has come up with the most absurd explanations to maintain a false conclusion. You don’t have anything but hope to back up your belief system. Are you saying logic is less concrete?
You are straying way off track.

[therajraj]

[quote]pat wrote:

You don’t have anything but hope to back up your belief system. [/quote]

please explain

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I give you an example, calculus or Boolean math is just as metaphysical as God is. You cannot know Calculus if you do try. And hell it may even seem unknowable because it’s hard, but it is knowable if you try. Same with God. You cannot possible tell me that Calculus is a man made physical construct, please don’t be that dense. Because I will happily show you, again, how you are wrong, again.
Again, it’s your problem with your very narrow view of existence. [/quote]

My objections to your cosmological argument were pretty similar to this guys’ objections: Kant’s Critique of Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

When I imagine a pile of shit, that pile of shit is just as metaphysical as God is. That doesn’t mean the imagined pile of shit is real, nor does it mean God is real.

I can use calculus to solve a problem. As such calculus is the application of how we understand and perceive reality in a meaningful way.
[/quote]
Your objections to the cosmological argument is based on Kant? I find that quite ironic. Kant certainly did a lot of work in the realm of epistemology and his criticisms ban pretty much be boiled down the ‘man makes too many assumptions’. He has a little point, but what I find ironic is that Kant’s replacement for the cosmological argument was a morality based structure that boiled down, was essentially the cosmological argument, where the starting point was trying to rationalize the existence of good. All propositions you reject. Which is the ironic part.
I confess I never really have ever liked Kant all that much. His criticisms are important to note. But he had a knack for over complicating things and just wanting to replace it with his own stuff. Which in that era, I prefer Hume much more.

Now with your ontological construct of a pile of shit being as metaphysical as the existence of God is correct. Gosh, it’s seems like I have been trying to get this concept through your head for the longest time and now your getting it?
Yes, from an ontological point of view that is correct. In an epistemological sense, the is no difference between believing the pile of shit existing and it actually existing. But that’s not the cosmological argument, that’s the ontological argument for the existence of God. And the basic, most common and solid criticism of the ontological argument is that the ability to conceive does not translate necessarily into reality. It’s the objection that had me rejecting it for quite a long time, but I have actually began to rethink and change my mind about it. The problem with explaining such a thing to ‘lay’ people is murder.
The resolution of the issue simply resolves around the fact that at that ‘level’, where you are in the ladder of existence, there is no, or almost no difference between concept and existence.
The whole idea behind ontology is basically that ‘all conception is predicated on existence’. In other words, it’s impossible to conceive it without that it having some basis in reality.
But what you are objecting to essentially, is ontology, not cosmology. What Kant was counter arguing is that cosmology, at least that which he was exposed to in his day, was that cosmology has some root or intrinsic ties to ontology. I think we have moved past those objection by now. We sure don’t isolate the physical from the metaphysical like we used too.
Still do not know how this is relevant to whether morality is emotively based or is has some absolutes at its core.

…

Okay, I can see now how you could extend the same principle to morality. I can’t find a way to talk myself out of this one, and usually that’s a sign, lol.

I might even have to change my mind, but before I do I’ll have to let this simmer for a bit.

…to be continued.

LOL, Okay… simmer away.

[pat]

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I never understood why a logical argument in itself is so compelling to conclusively say there is a god.

Most related knowledge in science points in the direction of there being no god.
[/quote]

Oh, what science is this? Certainly, the current fad amongst scientists is atheism, but I have never known science to directly test a existence of God theory. Science certainly cannot conclusively conclude there is no God when it has never actually asked the question. I am not sure it could even test such a thing really. But science has never determined a damn thing about God, it has never even tried.

I don’t understand how a logical argument isn’t compelling. All propositions are logical arguments especially science. Can you test a completely illogical proposition? All academic disciplines are rooted in logic. There is a basal logic behind all of it. This is why you get a PHd, or ‘doctor of Philosophy in __________’
Any information you rely on better be logically valid or it’s a false proposition. I mean, can you rely on somebody’s account of history, that has no basis in fact and is completely illogical?
In the end everything boils down to a logical argument and if that argument is false so is you conclusion.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I never understood why a logical argument in itself is so compelling to conclusively say there is a god.

Most related knowledge in science points in the direction of there being no god.
[/quote]

How can you prove, or disprove, that something exists outside of time and space?

You can’t.

So either you take a leap of faith and try to support your faith in whatever way, even by use of logic, or you don’t.
[/quote]
Speak for yourself. The entity of metaphysics exists outside of time and space. Even ‘time’ and 'space ’ itself are metaphysical in nature.
The problem is technically opposite, you cannot prove anything within the realm of time and space. The reason is that you can only get information about such things through your senses. Since you senses are crude instruments and you have an isolation issue with in the self, you can never, ever, ever prove that any physical experience or observation is anything more than an illusion or delusion.
You can make absolute statements in metaphysics, you cannot do the same in the physical world. The only thing we can be certain about the physical world is that we cannot know that much about it, if anything.

But if we can derive a certain kind of order from our observations of reality and call that mathemetics, then there’s no reason why you can’t call another kind of order based on observations of reality and call that morality.

This is what we’ve been trying to tell you all along, we can know mathmatics exist, because we can observe it’s influence. Same thing with morality. They are both abstract, but both very real. You can do bad math just like you can do bad morality. You can misunderstand math, just like you can misunderstand morality. Screwing it up does not invalidate existence.
You can observe it’s affect in the material world, but neither are material entities.

[quote]

The only difference between the two, in my view, is that morality lacks a backdrop.

Pat will call that backdrop the uncaused cause; T will call it what he always calls it; Kamui will call it infinite wisdom or intellect, and I’m back at my default position:

I don’t know [what that backdrop might be, or if there is one at all].

This has been a good day.[/quote]

I call the Necessary Being an uncased-cause. Morality does not lack a back drop. Just like math is represented by symbols, morality is represented by action.
I really don’t understand why you keep referring to God here. It really makes no sense. Morality is rooted in freewill, action, good and evil. Certainly all those things are eventually traceable back to God, just like math or anything else, but this is not a discussion about causal reality, or the cosmological argument itself. Morality, just like a race car is an isolated entity and can be discussed with out talking about God. I think when you are able to separate these things, you understand it a whole lot better.

Certainly for instance, Kamui is an atheist, but knows that morality exists. You can bring up God in morality discussions, but its not necessary.

[kamui]

To Ephrem :

I really don’t understand your “materialism”.

If we start with this premise :

“knowledge is subjective, and relative to the human mind”

we have to derive the conclusion that :

“we will never know what reality is, objectively”

Ok.
Granted.

but
we have to accept that
“this subjective world is the only one we will ever get. We can not escape from it. And we have to accept its reality”.

And at this point, we have no reason to decide that a material apple is somewhat more real than a value, or a moral rule.

In last analysis, both are ideas in our human minds. And both are “subjectively real”. Ie : as real as a thing can be with such an epistemological premise.

Real “for us” maybe.
But it doesn’t matter.
there is no “non-us” to compare or argue.

On other words : the second one accepts this premise “knowledge is subjective, and relative to the human mind”, everything become a mere fiction, and as a result, one lose the right to dismiss someone else’s beliefs as fictions.

There is really no alternative : either you’re a subjectivist, and you have to accept ALL our “fictions”, since you don’t have any objective criterium to reject them.
Or you’re an objectivist, and, congratulations, you’ve got a metaphysical position.

[silee]

[quote]kamui wrote:
To Ephrem :

I really don’t understand your “materialism”.

If we start with this premise :

“knowledge is subjective, and relative to the human mind”

we have to derive the conclusion that :

“we will never know what reality is, objectively”

Ok.
Granted.

but
we have to accept that
“this subjective world is the only one we will ever get. We can not escape from it. And we have to accept its reality”.

And at this point, we have no reason to decide that a material apple is somewhat more real than a value, or a moral rule.

In last analysis, both are ideas in our human minds. And both are “subjectively real”. Ie : as real as a thing can be with such an epistemological premise.

Real “for us” maybe.
But it doesn’t matter.
there is no “non-us” to compare or argue.

On other words : the second one accepts this premise “knowledge is subjective, and relative to the human mind”, everything become a mere fiction, and as a result, one lose the right to dismiss someone else’s beliefs as fictions.

There is really no alternative : either you’re a subjectivist, and you have to accept ALL our “fictions”, since you don’t have any objective criterium to reject them.
Or you’re an objectivist, and, congratulations, you’ve got a metaphysical position.

[/quote]

Well the first alternative is crazy relativism which means no ones arguments aren’t any better than anyone else. Clearly this is not a good position. The second position which i take to be absolutism, is that there is a God’s eye view of reality. But the alternative to this is relativism but not crazy relativism. Its a relativism that meets the criterion of argumentation and scientific evidence for understanding the natural world. The concepts of this non crazy relativism are the best we have presently and guide the way research is done normally. If scientist and philosophers of science start to question the usefulness of these concepts the period for normal science becomes one of revolutionary science and its not until the concept and methodology for doing science normalize that we again take these concepts for granted as being the best tools we have for understanding the natural world.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]silee wrote:<<< the alternative to this is relativism but not crazy relativism. >>>[/quote]I suspect this is simply another way of proclaiming probability as the pinnacle of knowledge due to the impossibility of certainty. If this is what you are in fact saying then please define “probability”. Would you agree that probability is the state of being more or less certain? In other words a “thing” is probable to the degree that it approaches certainty?

[therajraj]

[quote]pat wrote:

Oh, what science is this? Certainly, the current fad amongst scientists is atheism, but I have never known science to directly test a existence of God theory. Science certainly cannot conclusively conclude there is no God when it has never actually asked the question. I am not sure it could even test such a thing really. But science has never determined a damn thing about God, it has never even tried.[/quote]

I actually wasn’t referring to the god hypothesis rather knowledge analogous to god/religion.

For instance the epic failure of prayer. Or events once thought to be miracles now understood to be in line with statistical probabilities. Or the vastness of the universe making it highly unlikely we are the only intelligent life out there etc etc.

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t understand how a logical argument isn’t compelling. All propositions are logical arguments especially science. Can you test a completely illogical proposition? All academic disciplines are rooted in logic. There is a basal logic behind all of it. This is why you get a PHd, or ‘doctor of Philosophy in __________’
Any information you rely on better be logically valid or it’s a false proposition. I mean, can you rely on somebody’s account of history, that has no basis in fact and is completely illogical?
In the end everything boils down to a logical argument and if that argument is false so is you conclusion.[/quote]

Let me clarify.

I don’t understand why a logical argument by itself is compelling as evidence for a god. Science uses logic but everything in science is demonstrable and testable in some way.

Your logical argument for god may appear sound, but you cannot test it in any way.

[therajraj]

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You don’t have anything but hope to back up your belief system. [/quote]

please explain[/quote]

…

[kamui]

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
To Ephrem :

I really don’t understand your “materialism”.

If we start with this premise :

“knowledge is subjective, and relative to the human mind”

we have to derive the conclusion that :

“we will never know what reality is, objectively”

Ok.
Granted.

but
we have to accept that
“this subjective world is the only one we will ever get. We can not escape from it. And we have to accept its reality”.

And at this point, we have no reason to decide that a material apple is somewhat more real than a value, or a moral rule.

In last analysis, both are ideas in our human minds. And both are “subjectively real”. Ie : as real as a thing can be with such an epistemological premise.

Real “for us” maybe.
But it doesn’t matter.
there is no “non-us” to compare or argue.

On other words : the second one accepts this premise “knowledge is subjective, and relative to the human mind”, everything become a mere fiction, and as a result, one lose the right to dismiss someone else’s beliefs as fictions.

There is really no alternative : either you’re a subjectivist, and you have to accept ALL our “fictions”, since you don’t have any objective criterium to reject them.
Or you’re an objectivist, and, congratulations, you’ve got a metaphysical position.

[/quote]

Well the first alternative is crazy relativism which means no ones arguments aren’t any better than anyone else. Clearly this is not a good position. The second position which i take to be absolutism, is that there is a God’s eye view of reality. But the alternative to this is relativism but not crazy relativism. Its a relativism that meets the criterion of argumentation and scientific evidence for understanding the natural world. The concepts of this non crazy relativism are the best we have presently and guide the way research is done normally. If scientist and philosophers of science start to question the usefulness of these concepts the period for normal science becomes one of revolutionary science and its not until the concept and methodology for doing science normalize that we again take these concepts for granted as being the best tools we have for understanding the natural world.
[/quote]

We are not speaking about “understanding the natural world” here. That’s the next step.
At this point, we are trying to know how we do know that a natural world exists.

The point is that as soon as you say that there is a natural world (and that this natural world can be understood) you’re no more a relativist.
But a “believer”. Just like us.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< The point is that as soon as you say that there is a natural world (and that this natural world can be understood) you’re no more a relativist.
But a “believer”. Just like us. [/quote]You are jist way too much man LOL!!! EXACTLY right again. We are back once more at certainty being the unavoidable all governing epistemological foundation for everybody, including those who deny it’s very possibility.

[pat]

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Oh, what science is this? Certainly, the current fad amongst scientists is atheism, but I have never known science to directly test a existence of God theory. Science certainly cannot conclusively conclude there is no God when it has never actually asked the question. I am not sure it could even test such a thing really. But science has never determined a damn thing about God, it has never even tried.[/quote]

I actually wasn’t referring to the god hypothesis rather knowledge analogous to god/religion.

For instance the epic failure of prayer. Or events once thought to be miracles now understood to be in line with statistical probabilities. Or the vastness of the universe making it highly unlikely we are the only intelligent life out there etc etc.
[/quote]
Failure of prayer? Oh wait no, epic failure of prayer? How would you quantify that any way. You’re dealing with a conscious being that doesn’t like to be tested. I imagine, you could ‘test’ prayer except that you have a conscious being on the other side that doesn’t like and won’t react to. But prayer doesn’t fail, not for me. I couldn’t prove it to you. So you can either believe me, or take me for a fool or a liar, it doesn’t really matter much to me which.
And which miracles are you talking about. Be specific. Certainly not every miracle has been found to be statistically provable by science. But since there are thousands of potential examples, you’d really need to be specific.

The vastness of the universe? Now you really got to be joking? How does that invalidate the existence of God? Hell, I’d think it would strengthen it. You position is necessarily that something can come from nothing. That is not only illogical and impossible on every level, but an utter rediculus notion. Seriously step back and look, is everything based on nothing? That makes no sense what so ever.
Even the boobs who tried to posit such a theory either reduce it to dark matter, or in the case of Hawking, gravity. Since neither of those are nothing, then they have failed at the proposition.
Before you even start with the ‘always there crap’ it still doesn’t matter, because all things are contingent, and there isn’t anything that exists that can be contingent on nothing.

So how ever ridiculous you think my proposition is, yours is even more absurd and based on ‘nothing’ literally nothing. The problem with that is ‘nothingness’ does not exist, literally.

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t understand how a logical argument isn’t compelling. All propositions are logical arguments especially science. Can you test a completely illogical proposition? All academic disciplines are rooted in logic. There is a basal logic behind all of it. This is why you get a PHd, or ‘doctor of Philosophy in __________’
Any information you rely on better be logically valid or it’s a false proposition. I mean, can you rely on somebody’s account of history, that has no basis in fact and is completely illogical?
In the end everything boils down to a logical argument and if that argument is false so is you conclusion.[/quote]

Let me clarify.

I don’t understand why a logical argument by itself is compelling as evidence for a god. Science uses logic but everything in science is demonstrable and testable in some way.

Your logical argument for god may appear sound, but you cannot test it in any way.

Science is reducible to logic. When you are testing something empirically it’s to test a metaphysical proposition. You cannot ‘test’ the existence of math, but you use it to validate science with. You cannot test the ‘law’ of gravity, you can only see it’s effect.
Science is a single form of logical proposition. It’s empirical. And while useful, it’s cannot test everything that exists.
You need to understand logical hierarchies. Science is technically a weak logical form. The problem with it is that it’s empirical. The inherent weaknesses are: you cannot isolate all variables, the results establish statistical correlations, and results have to be interpreted. Because of there weaknesses the best science can do is give us probabilities based on a limited information set. The further out from the observation that your possible implications go, the lower the statistical accuracy.
I can say, ‘Because we went to the Moon, we should be able to go to Mars.’ ← The probability of going to the moon with current tech is far more likely than going to Mars. But it’s all just space travel which is based on scientific propositions that are statistically true.
Bottom line, logic is the daddy of everything. With metaphysics, that uses deductive logic often times, and an while a physical can be found to be probably true, a deductive proposition is absolute. There are no statistics with deductive logic, it’s either true or not true. With empiricism, you have degrees.
Before you put so much faith in science, look at what it, science itself is. Historically speaking, it’s been mostly wrong.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
To Ephrem :

I really don’t understand your “materialism”.

If we start with this premise :

“knowledge is subjective, and relative to the human mind”

we have to derive the conclusion that :

“we will never know what reality is, objectively”

Ok.
Granted.

but
we have to accept that
“this subjective world is the only one we will ever get. We can not escape from it. And we have to accept its reality”.

And at this point, we have no reason to decide that a material apple is somewhat more real than a value, or a moral rule.

In last analysis, both are ideas in our human minds. And both are “subjectively real”. Ie : as real as a thing can be with such an epistemological premise.

Real “for us” maybe.
But it doesn’t matter.
there is no “non-us” to compare or argue.

On other words : the second one accepts this premise “knowledge is subjective, and relative to the human mind”, everything become a mere fiction, and as a result, one lose the right to dismiss someone else’s beliefs as fictions.

There is really no alternative : either you’re a subjectivist, and you have to accept ALL our “fictions”, since you don’t have any objective criterium to reject them.
Or you’re an objectivist, and, congratulations, you’ve got a metaphysical position.

[/quote]

Well the first alternative is crazy relativism which means no ones arguments aren’t any better than anyone else. Clearly this is not a good position. The second position which i take to be absolutism, is that there is a God’s eye view of reality. But the alternative to this is relativism but not crazy relativism. Its a relativism that meets the criterion of argumentation and scientific evidence for understanding the natural world. The concepts of this non crazy relativism are the best we have presently and guide the way research is done normally. If scientist and philosophers of science start to question the usefulness of these concepts the period for normal science becomes one of revolutionary science and its not until the concept and methodology for doing science normalize that we again take these concepts for granted as being the best tools we have for understanding the natural world.
[/quote]

We are not speaking about “understanding the natural world” here. That’s the next step.
At this point, we are trying to know how we do know that a natural world exists.

The point is that as soon as you say that there is a natural world (and that this natural world can be understood) you’re no more a relativist.
But a “believer”. Just like us. [/quote]

Well, I am certainly a “believer” of absolutely true propositions. I would not call that faith though.

[silee]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
To Ephrem :

I really don’t understand your “materialism”.

If we start with this premise :

“knowledge is subjective, and relative to the human mind”

we have to derive the conclusion that :

“we will never know what reality is, objectively”

Ok.
Granted.

but
we have to accept that
“this subjective world is the only one we will ever get. We can not escape from it. And we have to accept its reality”.

And at this point, we have no reason to decide that a material apple is somewhat more real than a value, or a moral rule.

In last analysis, both are ideas in our human minds. And both are “subjectively real”. Ie : as real as a thing can be with such an epistemological premise.

Real “for us” maybe.
But it doesn’t matter.
there is no “non-us” to compare or argue.

On other words : the second one accepts this premise “knowledge is subjective, and relative to the human mind”, everything become a mere fiction, and as a result, one lose the right to dismiss someone else’s beliefs as fictions.

There is really no alternative : either you’re a subjectivist, and you have to accept ALL our “fictions”, since you don’t have any objective criterium to reject them.
Or you’re an objectivist, and, congratulations, you’ve got a metaphysical position.

[/quote]

Well the first alternative is crazy relativism which means no ones arguments aren’t any better than anyone else. Clearly this is not a good position. The second position which i take to be absolutism, is that there is a God’s eye view of reality. But the alternative to this is relativism but not crazy relativism. Its a relativism that meets the criterion of argumentation and scientific evidence for understanding the natural world. The concepts of this non crazy relativism are the best we have presently and guide the way research is done normally. If scientist and philosophers of science start to question the usefulness of these concepts the period for normal science becomes one of revolutionary science and its not until the concept and methodology for doing science normalize that we again take these concepts for granted as being the best tools we have for understanding the natural world.
[/quote]

We are not speaking about “understanding the natural world” here. That’s the next step.
At this point, we are trying to know how we do know that a natural world exists.

The point is that as soon as you say that there is a natural world (and that this natural world can be understood) you’re no more a relativist.
But a “believer”. Just like us. [/quote]

Well, I am certainly a “believer” of absolutely true propositions. I would not call that faith though.[/quote]

To Kamui: No when a person says they don’t believe or think its necessary for absolutes then you take on a relativist point of view. But mind you its not an anything goes Crazy relativism. The relativist isn’t concerned with what is “given” or "true reality " and yet they to don’t just make empty assertions about what is compelling or interesting or capable of bearing fruit which advances our understanding of whatever it is that are investigations are concerned with.

To Pat: you mean what is to count as truth within a context or system?

[kamui]

[quote]To Kamui: No when a person says they don’t believe or think its necessary for absolutes then you take on a relativist point of view. But mind you its not an anything goes Crazy relativism. The relativist isn’t concerned with what is “given” or "true reality " and yet they to don’t just make empty assertions about what is compelling or interesting or capable of bearing fruit which advances our understanding of whatever it is that are investigations are concerned with.

To Pat: you mean what is to count as truth within a context or system? [/quote]

Many people say they don’t believe in absolutes.
But i never met someone who actually DID that.

Most often than not, people don’t believe in absolutes… except their absolute existence and the absolute value of their own “I am/I want”.
Which is the only thing they can’t relativize, once they have relativized everything else.
They are not crazy. They are either inconsistent or hypocrites. Which is not exactly the same thing.

Your “non-crazy” relativism is not a relativism at all.
It does believe in a tons of absolutes. It just refuses to acknowledge them as such.

For example, i’m pretty sure that you do believe that you exist, that you do believe that the world exists, that you do believe that causality exists, that you do believe that time is irreversible.
These existences are absolute.
These propositions are metaphysic in nature.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Many people say they don’t believe in absolutes.
But i never met someone who actually DID that. >>>[/quote]That’s because there aren’t any.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Most often than not, people don’t believe in absolutes… except their absolute existence and the absolute value of their own “I am/I want”. Which is the only thing they can’t relativize, once they have relativized everything else. >>>[/quote]I would state this differently, but still good.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< They are not crazy. They are either inconsistent or hypocrites. Which is not exactly the same thing. >>>[/quote]Yep, yep n yep. I would say they are sinners who prefer inconsistency and or hypocrisy rather than submitting their mind and will to the God who alone can bring freedom from either.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Your “non-crazy” relativism is not a relativism at all. It does believe in a tons of absolutes. It just refuses to acknowledge them as such. >>>[/quote]That is EXACTLY right again.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< For example, i’m pretty sure that you do believe that you exist, that you do believe that the world exists, that you do believe that causality exists, that you do believe that time is irreversible. >>>[/quote]And that 2+2=4[quote]kamui wrote:<<< These existences are absolute. These propositions are metaphysic in nature >>>[/quote]Yep n yep. The Lord of the universe has granted you intellectual access to His throne room Kamui and still not yet given you the life necessary to recognize it. You are a new one for me my friend. A definite first.

[kamui]

Yep n yep. The Lord of the universe has granted you intellectual access to His throne room Kamui and still not yet given you the life necessary to recognize it. You are a new one for me my friend. A definite first.

I suppose i love my sins (especially the sexual ones) too much