How is the validity of this?

[tackattack]

---

It definately holds up. Everything you said was logically reasoned out from your first principles.

But, just like euclidian geometry, just because it all makes sense doesn't mean its true. Anyone could disagree with your definitions, or they could disagree with what you do with them.

That's one of the reasons why it's so hard to know stuff.

---

---

Invisible forces (gravity) are within reality but not tangible. So there goes your number two statement that you base the rest of your logic on; therefore, it isn't valid.

---

Thanks for the good input. I wasn't trying test it's truth, just it's logical soundness. What if I rewored 2 to read "2-To be part of "reality" requires a measurable materialistic or tangible component " As a force it can be demonstrated or measured materialsitcally and scientifically.

---

How is the first response to this OP in anyway tiresome or pretentious.. it's fine no worries. I wasn't really looking for a point counterpoint.. more of a criticism of the logical validity and structure. I'll bat the ball for a little though.
So you're saying the idea of a moral absolute isn't useful to humans anymore? That a definitive and absolute Good is flexible.

I'll add that it isn't useful to humans, as we become more interconnected with different cultures, right and wrong can change meaning depending on region and background. I'll contend that moral absolutes were never known - the vast amount of inconsistencies in God's word and God's actions shows that not only are these not absolute, he doesn't prescribe to his own medicine. Morality is subjective - it has to be as a result of societal evolution. Values change as time progresses and the environment calls for it. There are no morals that are absolute in the sense that they are always wrong or always right.

Did you mean reality can be used to demonstrate mathmatical concepts? How would you demonstrate tangibly from something intangible?

By using placeholders to demonstrate a concept. I can demonstrate 2+2=4 by obtaining 2 apples, then another 2 apples, and counting them.

We know there are "gray areas" in reality so wouldn't Math be less useful for excluding those? Wouldn't they be variables?

Elaborate on gray areas, please.

I bet if I asked arcanus and Fr0d0 to sum up a God definition in a two word phrase we'd all pretty much come to the same conclusion. How is that different interpretations? By rejecting any possibility of Moral absolutes yet accepting mathmatical absolutes, isn't that hypocritical? What is an absolute? Is it having no restriction, exception, or qualification and being the sum of undiluted purity? If that doesn't define what others and I have defined on this forums as God, I don't know what is.

Arcanus, sure. Fr0d0, not so sure. I actually enjoy your topics and posts much more than him, but I digress.

Morality and mathematics are not the same. Morality at its very core is subjective, as it requires a mind for its existence. Moral absolutes presuppose a first mind (possibly a god), but as there are no known moral absolutes, there isn't a very good reason to think the latter is true.

An absolute, when talking about a truth statement, is something that would be true regardless of any factors within our universe. It would also have to be a noumenon, something which is independent of a mind.

---

A-And as we become more interconnected language expands and words change definition, does this make them less usefull or useless?
B-Yes morals have been subjective. They are also local societal classifications agreeing on what's right and wrong. Some theists use a common morality of the ten commandments transcending lines of community. Who's to say that morality isn't scalable with no moral construct on one end and absolute morality on the other. It could be something that we're developing or evolving to.
C-God is demonstratable too, albeit far more subjective than math. demonstratability is falsifiability. I can, and have listed many congruent subjective points leading to a course objectively guiding my life demonstrating God's ordering hand.
D-Gray Areas= a term for a border in-between two or more things that is unclearly defined, a border that is hard to define or even impossible to define, or a definition where the distinction border tends to move. Such examples would be undefined areas in law, definitions and morality. Do I need to go deeper?
E-Math at its very core is subjective, as it requires a mind for its existence. Math absolutes presuppose a maximum optimal value (yet undefined/ unknown) or intentionally strip variable from an equation, but as there are no known absolutes (only supposed), there is a very historicaly plausable and useful reason to think it is true. An absolute, when talking about a truth statement, is something that would be true regardless of any factors within our universe. It would also have to be a noumenon, revealed through phenomenon. Something which is independent of a mind that we are working towards a definition of. I hope this enumerates a little better tav.

---

How is the first response to this OP in anyway tiresome or pretentious.. it's fine no worries. I wasn't really looking for a point counterpoint.. more of a criticism of the logical validity and structure. I'll bat the ball for a little though.
So you're saying the idea of a moral absolute isn't useful to humans anymore? That a definitive and absolute Good is flexible. Did you mean reality can be used to demonstrate mathmatical concepts? How would you demonstrate tangibly from something intangible? We know there are "gray areas" in reality so wouldn't Math be less useful for excluding those? Wouldn't they be variables?

I bet if I asked arcanus and Fr0d0 to sum up a God definition in a two word phrase we'd all pretty much come to the same conclusion. How is that different interpretations? By rejecting any possibility of Moral absolutes yet accepting mathmatical absolutes, isn't that hypocritical? What is an absolute? Is it having no restriction, exception, or qualification and being the sum of undiluted purity? If that doesn't define what others and I have defined on this forums as God, I don't know what is.

I was hoping to avoid being pedantic, not saying anything else was.

I say that religion is not nessacary for a moral absolute anymore, religion is like a jello mold, and the jello has set.

Using reality, I can demonstrate math. For example, if I have six apples and four apples, if I combine them I get 10 apples. I cannot demonstrate god using tangible reality.

With math, you know that you know what you know. With a math problem, the awnser may be a range of numbers, a single number, or some kind of variable. but you know that all of the possible awnsers work, and you can figure out the pattern for all possible awnsers. A grey area would be to say that you get perhaps a range of numbers, and some of them might not be awnsers, but there is no way to tell.

The basic idea that there is some kind of god is nearly universal among religion, however how god is interpreted varies, and inside of one interpretation of god, all the details of the religion are open to interpretation. The meaning of the bible stories is constantly disputed...

Contending that one area is not as well defined and universally standard as another is not to say that standards do not exist. Everybody has a different set of ethics. In our society, what is considered right and wrong is widely accepted, but not absolute, as any number of moral justifications are used to make something moral to that individual. Math however, there are rules that when broken the numbers dont work out, and you get the wrong awnser. Math and ethics do have common aspects, as with any two areas of thought, but they function in very different ways, as morality is a purely emotional thing, and math is purely factual and emotionless.

God is an idea, from a strictly anthropological point of view, religion is a very usefull tool in the right circumstances, and todays society is not the right circumstances; however from the religious aspect, god is a pre-defined entity, and depending on which part of which religion you ask, those definitions will vary.

---

So we're as morally perfect as we're going to be? That's like saying I've learned enough.. There's nothing more. A moral absolute is necessary in the pursuit of purity of morality as a society. I just call mine God and atheists reject it and keep their "moral cap" at societial best case scenario. It's no wonder more skeptics are pessimistic (purely assumption based off observations). I can show you lives changed, hearts healed, hope renewed, success, contentment, pure joy and elation all attributed to God. The nature of the proof is intangible and at a consciousness level, not a materialistic objectifiable one. I would say Math is emotionless and logically objectifiable and morality is emotional and irrational at times, neither of which proves truth. I'm just trying to point out the dismissiveness of anything remotely subjective, when day-to-day life uses assumed consistencies in subjective reality more than most give any credit for. You see no value to your community or society from organized religion, I disagree. More has been done within my Christian community for the betterment of my fellow man, in 6 months, than Obama could ever do.



@Adrian.. Don't want to reopen that can of worms.. but fascinating. so .999... =|1|
So what about this proposition :
If God just is (fixed value with no rate of change) could it's value be constant when our concept of God's definition is enless due to subjectivity?

Or subjective definition of God (.999r) = Absolute omnimax value (|1|)
Thanks to everyone for the help so far I really appreciate it!