Who Made God?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]deanec wrote:
cram2012 wrote:
deanec wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Ahh, but where your and my morality derive from could be two totally different places and lead us to two totally different assertions of what is moral and what isn’t. Hence the 9/11 attacks example used earlier and ergo, morality is subjective.

This line of reasoning is valid only if both of us agree that an absolute standard does not or can not exist. If on the other hand one of us does believe in an absolute standard, it allows an evaluation of the morality of an action based on that standard. If there is no absolute standard of morality, on what grounds can any person express outrage at any action another chooses?

going back to the common ground comment. The majority of people agree that Murder, Rape, ect is wrong. many belief systems would support this, as well as general common sense.

That may be, but can we always assign common ground or majority rule standards? If the majority of people believe that ethnic cleansing is ok, does that make it moral? If not, why not?

[/quote]
Is ehtnic Cleansing moral? I beleive it’s not. The majority of folks in America would agree…thats the beauty of a democratic society we can determine what actions we do not accept.

Now I dont want to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting that what America, as a whole, deems inapropriate should be based of religious beleifs?

There is genocide taking place in Africa right now, I dont know all the specifics, but dont think we are doing anything to assist those folks, nor is any other nation. We have no political interest in doing so. Is that morally right?
I think to a large degree you are born with a sense of right and wrong and your experiences shape those values overtime.

122

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
cram2012 wrote:
deanec wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Ahh, but where your and my morality derive from could be two totally different places and lead us to two totally different assertions of what is moral and what isn’t. Hence the 9/11 attacks example used earlier and ergo, morality is subjective.

This line of reasoning is valid only if both of us agree that an absolute standard does not or can not exist. If on the other hand one of us does believe in an absolute standard, it allows an evaluation of the morality of an action based on that standard. If there is no absolute standard of morality, on what grounds can any person express outrage at any action another chooses?

going back to the common ground comment. The majority of people agree that Murder, Rape, ect is wrong. many belief systems would support this, as well as general common sense. but now lets move to concepts with more grey area:
Abortion, having sex before marriage, stealing as your last means of survival, ect… An “Absolute” belief systems would content this to be immoral, however, others would not, there is no right or wrong answer to these questions, and where we run into the “morality is subjective” statement. If someone told me that you are wrong for having sex before marriage, I would say great “blow me,” (no pun intended)

I dont agree, I am not right or wrong, thats just what I beleive. There exists no absolute truth for that question. if you are against it, its an easy solution, dont have sex before marriage. but my decisions do not impede on you as an individual.
However, when your actions or beliefs cause harm to another, most would agree this is wrong…hence a common ground and the reason laws are constructed…it benefits the most people, to implement those types of restrictions.

It’s not only valid if we agree there is no absolute truth (which I think we do?). It would be as much of a truism if one of us said morality is x, y & z only and I said in fact it was a, b & c only.

The fact we could interperate morality as two different things exemplifies its subjectivity. Now one of us could say ‘you are wrong and I am right because my morality is the Absolute’ but that does not change the belief, and the subsequent reasoning about the concept itself.

[/quote]

We differ fundamentality in this aspect. I do believe in absolute truth, therefore I would reject that there can be ?interpretation? of morality. I understand this does not change your view on the subject, one is free to accept or reject as they please. However this would not alter the reality of an absolute truth. I submit that it is illogical to appeal to any sense of morality without a basis on which that morality can be firmly grounded.

Yet you must certainly realize that your acceptance of an absolute standard has nothing to do with whether one exists or not. What makes your moral guidelines more valid than anothers?

By the way, I am not trying to be combative, just foster further discussion.

123

[quote]deanec wrote:
We differ fundamentality in this aspect. I do believe in absolute truth, therefore I would reject that there can be ?interpretation? of morality. I understand this does not change your view on the subject, one is free to accept or reject as they please. However this would not alter the reality of an absolute truth. I submit that it is illogical to appeal to any sense of morality without a basis on which that morality can be firmly grounded.

Yet you must certainly realize that your acceptance of an absolute standard has nothing to do with whether one exists or not. What makes your moral guidelines more valid than anothers?

By the way, I am not trying to be combative, just foster further discussion.
[/quote]

Nice to be chatting with people rather than screaming at them. I find it refreshing after about ten pages or arguments…lol

Your last point about the absolute is, I suppose one of the fundamental cornerstones of your faith and so in that respect I understand why you could not have faith in what you do without a belief in the absolute truth of it.

My moral guidelines are my own. As I said previously they are not better, just different in some respects.

Now I can understand you rejecting that there SHOULD be different interpretations of what you believe to be an absolute, but I find it difficult to grasp how you could reject that there ARE such interpretations when for example, the abundance of different religious beliefs and creeds on this planet cleary show that they exist, whether you feel they are right or wrong.

All this friendly debate is worrying me… Is it a trick to lull me into a false sense of security? lol

124

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
deanec wrote:
We differ fundamentality in this aspect. I do believe in absolute truth, therefore I would reject that there can be ?interpretation? of morality. I understand this does not change your view on the subject, one is free to accept or reject as they please. However this would not alter the reality of an absolute truth. I submit that it is illogical to appeal to any sense of morality without a basis on which that morality can be firmly grounded.

Yet you must certainly realize that your acceptance of an absolute standard has nothing to do with whether one exists or not. What makes your moral guidelines more valid than anothers?

By the way, I am not trying to be combative, just foster further discussion.

Nice to be chatting with people rather than screaming at them. I find it refreshing after about ten pages or arguments…lol

Your last point about the absolute is, I suppose one of the fundamental cornerstones of your faith and so in that respect I understand why you could not have faith in what you do without a belief in the absolute truth of it.

My moral guidelines are my own. As I said previously they are not better, just different in some respects.

Now I can understand you rejecting that there SHOULD be different interpretations of what you believe to be an absolute, but I find it difficult to grasp how you could reject that there ARE such interpretations when for example, the abundance of different religious beliefs and creeds on this planet cleary show that they exist, whether you feel they are right or wrong.

All this friendly debate is worrying me… Is it a trick to lull me into a false sense of security? lol
[/quote]

I absolutely do not reject that there are other “interpretations” of what is called ethics or morality, and because of the plurality of society in general, this is not surprising. My contention (which I believe you agree with) is that these “interpretations” are nothing more than arbitrary choices based on feelings, experience, etc., of which each individual is necessarily different. If there is no absolute, there can be no justifiable condemnation of any action, because the standard by which it is judged is not absolute.

125

[quote]cram2012 wrote:
deanec wrote:
cram2012 wrote:
deanec wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Ahh, but where your and my morality derive from could be two totally different places and lead us to two totally different assertions of what is moral and what isn’t. Hence the 9/11 attacks example used earlier and ergo, morality is subjective.

This line of reasoning is valid only if both of us agree that an absolute standard does not or can not exist. If on the other hand one of us does believe in an absolute standard, it allows an evaluation of the morality of an action based on that standard. If there is no absolute standard of morality, on what grounds can any person express outrage at any action another chooses?

going back to the common ground comment. The majority of people agree that Murder, Rape, ect is wrong. many belief systems would support this, as well as general common sense.

That may be, but can we always assign common ground or majority rule standards? If the majority of people believe that ethnic cleansing is ok, does that make it moral? If not, why not?

Is ehtnic Cleansing moral? I beleive it’s not. The majority of folks in America would agree…thats the beauty of a democratic society we can determine what actions we do not accept.

Now I dont want to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting that what America, as a whole, deems inapropriate should be based of religious beleifs?

There is genocide taking place in Africa right now, I dont know all the specifics, but dont think we are doing anything to assist those folks, nor is any other nation. We have no political interest in doing so. Is that morally right?
I think to a large degree you are born with a sense of right and wrong and your experiences shape those values overtime.
[/quote]

It is not moral based on what? Because the majority says so? The majority of Americans also believed that one of black skin was inferior to one of white skin (or if they didn’t believe it, didn’t do much to stop it for more than a century - complicity). This did not make it true.

The question here is not whether a society, the United States for example, always acts in a morally justifiable manner. It clearly does not.

Experiences differ. On what basis can we say that the life experiences of a Hitler or a Bin Laden which shaped their worldview and subsequent actions are wrong, if there is no anchor of right and wrong in which to lay hold of?

126

[quote]deanec wrote:
I absolutely do not reject that there are other “interpretations” of what is called ethics or morality, and because of the plurality of society in general, this is not surprising. My contention (which I believe you agree with) is that these “interpretations” are nothing more than arbitrary choices based on feelings, experience, etc., of which each individual is necessarily different. If there is no absolute, there can be no justifiable condemnation of any action, because the standard by which it is judged is not absolute.[/quote]

The standard is not absolute, but each person’s ‘morality’ is valid to that individual and so judgements they make will be valid as well, although not necessarily to others who’s moral radar puts them in opposition to such a judgement or condemnation…

My brain’s hurting…lol

127

[quote]deanec wrote:
cram2012 wrote:
deanec wrote:
cram2012 wrote:
deanec wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Ahh, but where your and my morality derive from could be two totally different places and lead us to two totally different assertions of what is moral and what isn’t. Hence the 9/11 attacks example used earlier and ergo, morality is subjective.

This line of reasoning is valid only if both of us agree that an absolute standard does not or can not exist. If on the other hand one of us does believe in an absolute standard, it allows an evaluation of the morality of an action based on that standard. If there is no absolute standard of morality, on what grounds can any person express outrage at any action another chooses?

going back to the common ground comment. The majority of people agree that Murder, Rape, ect is wrong. many belief systems would support this, as well as general common sense.

That may be, but can we always assign common ground or majority rule standards? If the majority of people believe that ethnic cleansing is ok, does that make it moral? If not, why not?

Is ehtnic Cleansing moral? I beleive it’s not. The majority of folks in America would agree…thats the beauty of a democratic society we can determine what actions we do not accept.

Now I dont want to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting that what America, as a whole, deems inapropriate should be based of religious beleifs?

There is genocide taking place in Africa right now, I dont know all the specifics, but dont think we are doing anything to assist those folks, nor is any other nation. We have no political interest in doing so. Is that morally right?
I think to a large degree you are born with a sense of right and wrong and your experiences shape those values overtime.

It is not moral based on what? Because the majority says so? The majority of Americans also believed that one of black skin was inferior to one of white skin (or if they didn’t believe it, didn’t do much to stop it for more than a century - complicity). This did not make it true.

The question here is not whether a society, the United States for example, always acts in a morally justifiable manner. It clearly does not.

Experiences differ. On what basis can we say that the life experiences of a Hitler or a Bin Laden which shaped their worldview and subsequent actions are wrong, if there is no anchor of right and wrong in which to lay hold of? [/quote]

I think this is mainly a question of viewpoint. As an individual I need an “absolute” standard for morality. When I look at other people, I see that they sometimes use other standards. Yet they live, fall in love, have sex etc. Moral is subjective in comparison. It’s difficult to keep your own morals and compare at the same time. If you keep your own morals, you’re bound to evaluate, not compare.

128

[quote]deanec wrote:
If there is no absolute, there can be no justifiable condemnation of any action, because the standard by which it is judged is not absolute.[/quote]

Your “absolute” is simply what the majority of society has agreed upon as being right or wrong.

And yes, that means that some things will become accepted over time while other things will become illegal. That’s how all of Western civilization works and has worked for quite some time.

Some action that was ok a few hundred years ago, like buying and keeping slaves, is now against the law (although still around in more subtle forms, like sweatshops). Similarly, treating women as cattle or as second class citizens has fallen by the wayside, as they slowly earned the right to vote, to drive and are now slowly getting salarial equity with men.

The general trend seems to be going towards more freedom for all; as long as those freedoms don’t curtail other’s similar freedoms. That’s a good thing, I believe.

The basics (ie, don’t kill, don’t steal recognizing the right to life and property) have been nailed down for a long, long time. The earliest known written laws included those (generally with exemptions for the king/emperor/ruler who could do as he pleased).

It also seems to me that all those people who keep clamoring for “moral absolutes” have given the question nearly no thought at all, prefering to look for and accept hook, line and sinker some pre-made list, supposedly “from Above” when that list simply reflect the societal mores of ancient nomadic tribes for whom shitting in hole in the ground was the height of sophistication.

129

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
deanec wrote:
I absolutely do not reject that there are other “interpretations” of what is called ethics or morality, and because of the plurality of society in general, this is not surprising. My contention (which I believe you agree with) is that these “interpretations” are nothing more than arbitrary choices based on feelings, experience, etc., of which each individual is necessarily different. If there is no absolute, there can be no justifiable condemnation of any action, because the standard by which it is judged is not absolute.

The standard is not absolute, but each person’s ‘morality’ is valid to that individual and so judgements they make will be valid as well, although not necessarily to others who’s moral radar puts them in opposition to such a judgement or condemnation…

My brain’s hurting…lol[/quote]

Now I feel as if we are going around in circles.

Sounds like a good recipe for anarchy to me…

130

[quote]pookie wrote:
deanec wrote:
If there is no absolute, there can be no justifiable condemnation of any action, because the standard by which it is judged is not absolute.

Your “absolute” is simply what the majority of society has agreed upon as being right or wrong.

And yes, that means that some things will become accepted over time while other things will become illegal. That’s how all of Western civilization works and has worked for quite some time.

Some action that was ok a few hundred years ago, like buying and keeping slaves, is now against the law (although still around in more subtle forms, like sweatshops). Similarly, treating women as cattle or as second class citizens has fallen by the wayside, as they slowly earned the right to vote, to drive and are now slowly getting salarial equity with men.

The general trend seems to be going towards more freedom for all; as long as those freedoms don’t curtail other’s similar freedoms. That’s a good thing, I believe.

The basics (ie, don’t kill, don’t steal recognizing the right to life and property) have been nailed down for a long, long time. The earliest known written laws included those (generally with exemptions for the king/emperor/ruler who could do as he pleased).

It also seems to me that all those people who keep clamoring for “moral absolutes” have given the question nearly no thought at all, prefering to look for and accept hook, line and sinker some pre-made list, supposedly “from Above” when that list simply reflect the societal mores of ancient nomadic tribes for whom shitting in hole in the ground was the height of sophistication.
[/quote]

You are certainly correct in that standards of society have and do evolve over time, but that does not necessarily answer the question. It is possible that there is an absolute standard and that societal standards fluctuate around that central standard.

Besides, I thought the standard came from the FSM…

131

[quote]deanec wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
deanec wrote:
I absolutely do not reject that there are other “interpretations” of what is called ethics or morality, and because of the plurality of society in general, this is not surprising. My contention (which I believe you agree with) is that these “interpretations” are nothing more than arbitrary choices based on feelings, experience, etc., of which each individual is necessarily different. If there is no absolute, there can be no justifiable condemnation of any action, because the standard by which it is judged is not absolute.

The standard is not absolute, but each person’s ‘morality’ is valid to that individual and so judgements they make will be valid as well, although not necessarily to others who’s moral radar puts them in opposition to such a judgement or condemnation…

My brain’s hurting…lol

Now I feel as if we are going around in circles.

Sounds like a good recipe for anarchy to me…[/quote]

Ha ha… Bottom line is…

My morals are valid to me.

Your morals are valid to you.

Osama Bin Laden’s morals are valid to him.

Much of what you believe to be moral will overlap my beliefs but not all. That is the subjectivity of morality.

But it’s the parts that overlap that stop the anarvhy. I think.

Anyway I’m off to do some looting lol…

132

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:

But it’s the parts that overlap that stop the anarvhy. I think. [/quote]

I’d rather say that ultimately, it’s law that stops anarchy.

133

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
deanec wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
deanec wrote:
I absolutely do not reject that there are other “interpretations” of what is called ethics or morality, and because of the plurality of society in general, this is not surprising. My contention (which I believe you agree with) is that these “interpretations” are nothing more than arbitrary choices based on feelings, experience, etc., of which each individual is necessarily different. If there is no absolute, there can be no justifiable condemnation of any action, because the standard by which it is judged is not absolute.

The standard is not absolute, but each person’s ‘morality’ is valid to that individual and so judgements they make will be valid as well, although not necessarily to others who’s moral radar puts them in opposition to such a judgement or condemnation…

My brain’s hurting…lol

Now I feel as if we are going around in circles.

Sounds like a good recipe for anarchy to me…

Ha ha… Bottom line is…

My morals are valid to me.

Your morals are valid to you.

Osama Bin Laden’s morals are valid to him.

Much of what you believe to be moral will overlap my beliefs but not all. That is the subjectivity of morality.

But it’s the parts that overlap that stop the anarvhy. I think.

Anyway I’m off to do some looting lol…[/quote]

No, the bottom line is my morals and your morals don’t amount to a pile of manure without an objective baseline to compare them to…

Don’t get shot by some high falutin’ moralist while you are out looting :slight_smile:

134

[quote]deanec wrote:
It is possible that there is an absolute standard and that societal standards fluctuate around that central standard.[/quote]

It is also possible that there’s no such absolute standard. Either way, it’s impossible to know if there is and, if so, what it is. So the point is moot. The best you can do is operate from the standpoint that there’s no such “moral absolute” and reason from there.

135

[quote]deanec wrote:
Don’t get shot by some high falutin’ moralist while you are out looting :)[/quote]

These discussions always come down to this. For some reason, it seems many people equate the lack of “absolute” morals with the lack of morals altogether.

Even without absolute morals telling me that looting is wrong, I know that looting is wrong. Why? Because if someone was looting me, I wouldn’t like it. Hence, if I’m looting someone else, they won’t like it anymore than I would. Since I’d rather not get looted; I’ll refrain from looting others.

It comes downs to according to others the same freedoms, rights and respect you expect to get yourself. Any right you claim for yourself, you should expect others to also claim for themselves; so if you think you can kill anyone you please, just because you feel like it, you should then expect to be killed at any moment at anyone’s whim. It doesn’t take much thought to realize that such an arrangement simply leads to a lot of dead bodies very quickly as everyone tries to pre-empt others from killing them by killing them first.

The only “absolute” needed to start reasoning acceptable rules of conducts is the agreeing upon that humans are social beings, who not only thrive in groups, but pretty much depend on it for survival. From there you extend the “group of humans” to include the whole of humanity and see which “rules” provide the most good for the most people.

136

[quote]pookie wrote:
deanec wrote:
It is possible that there is an absolute standard and that societal standards fluctuate around that central standard.

It is also possible that there’s no such absolute standard. Either way, it’s impossible to know if there is and, if so, what it is. So the point is moot. The best you can do is operate from the standpoint that there’s no such “moral absolute” and reason from there.

[/quote]

It is your contention that it is impossible to know, I do not necessarily agree. Either way, ones worldview is based upon something, and it can only be “reasonable” to operate within that worldview.

137

[quote]pookie wrote:
deanec wrote:
Don’t get shot by some high falutin’ moralist while you are out looting :slight_smile:

These discussions always come down to this. For some reason, it seems many people equate the lack of “absolute” morals with the lack of morals altogether.

Even without absolute morals telling me that looting is wrong, I know that looting is wrong. Why? Because if someone was looting me, I wouldn’t like it. Hence, if I’m looting someone else, they won’t like it anymore than I would. Since I’d rather not get looted; I’ll refrain from looting others.

It comes downs to according to others the same freedoms, rights and respect you expect to get yourself. Any right you claim for yourself, you should expect others to also claim for themselves; so if you think you can kill anyone you please, just because you feel like it, you should then expect to be killed at any moment at anyone’s whim. It doesn’t take much thought to realize that such an arrangement simply leads to a lot of dead bodies very quickly as everyone tries to pre-empt others from killing them by killing them first.

The only “absolute” needed to start reasoning acceptable rules of conducts is the agreeing upon that humans are social beings, who not only thrive in groups, but pretty much depend on it for survival. From there you extend the “group of humans” to include the whole of humanity and see which “rules” provide the most good for the most people.
[/quote]

All valid points in my book, yet still does not answer the question. Majority rules and common ground does not equal morality. I am sure you and I agree on many of the basic ethical and moral questions of our society yet not on others. Without absolute standards this can only be characterized as opinion, neither being any more valid than the other. In an age of reason, this seems highly illogical to me.

You’re a cool guy Pookie, I enjoy the discussion.

138

[quote]deanec wrote:
It is your contention that it is impossible to know, I do not necessarily agree.[/quote]

Well, one can believe differently, but there is no way of knowing as in providing irrefutable fact that can be independently verified.

Once there, having different people believing in different “moral absolutes” is no different than not having any moral absolutes to begin with.

It simply complicates the problem further, as everyone is totally convinced of the rightness of their beliefs.

If you believe in absolute morals handed down from some Divine source, then there’s no way to discuss or compromise or change any of those morals, even if eventually some of them seem “wrong.” There’s no way any believer can claim authority over the Divine source. Hopefully, your Divine source material is contradictory enough that you manage to support new ideas by favoring some parts of it over other, less open-minded parts.

See the end of my previous post for the “something to agree upon” part.

139

[quote]Professor X wrote:
According to one astrophysicist I asked at Nasa about this when I was in high school, at the center of a black hole spacetime has infinite curvature and matter is crushed to infinite density under the pull of infinite gravity. [/quote]

True. But because the center of the center of the black hole is a singularity, by definition it is infinitely small: it is a mathematical point, i.e., it does not have any dimensions. Hence you cannot say you’re “inside” a singularity, hence you said “inside a black hole”, you were saying “beyond the event horizon” – not at the singularity (point). Right?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
If you think of the event horizon as the path towards the singularity, time would exist up to the point that the line is crossed and the zero point in space of the singularity is reached.[/quote]

An Event Horizon is NOT the path towards the singularity. It’s a boundary (AROUND the singularity) that can be far, far away from the singularity (depending on the mass of the black hole). So after you cross the event horizon, you might still have a long, long distance to go before you reach the zero-point, i.e., the singularity.

140

[quote]hspder wrote:

True. But because the center of the center of the black hole is a singularity, by definition it is infinitely small: it is a mathematical point, i.e., it does not have any dimensions. Hence you cannot say you’re “inside” a singularity, hence you said “inside a black hole”, you were saying “beyond the event horizon” – not at the singularity (point). Right?[/quote]

This, along with…

…is simply arguing semantics. Yes, I will continue to use the concept of a pathway when descrigbing an event horizon because it fits. It fits even better if we were to start discussing the extreme possibility of worm holes. I really doubt we have much to argue about here. You seem to have read up on the concept some and I actually enjoy discussing this topic rather than anyone acting as if they alone have the locked down one true concept of the inner workings of a black hole.