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!

[tavarish]

A-And as we become more interconnected language expands and words change definition, does this make them less usefull or useless?

Give me an example of "words changing definition", please.

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.

Yes, that may be true, but to think that we already know it, and have known for some time, when there are obvious contradictions to such morality in holy books, is a bit arrogant. More to the point, the assertion that a deity that no one can demonstrate objectively has mandated this morality is even more dubious.

I don't know if there are moral absolutes, but I'm fairly certain that such a thing isn't known by anyone definitively.

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.

Ok, I'll play along. Demonstrate to me that God exists.

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?

Law, definitions, and morality are all subjective. Of course there are gray areas. I thought you meant it more in terms of metaphysical/spiritual claims and how math can apply to those specific issues.

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.

Math, at its core, isn't subjective, as 2+2 would not cease to equal 4 just because humans don't exist. The main reason math is used is because it has universal applications and does not rely on subjectivity, not in the least. If you're talking about math as a descriptive concept of reality, then I'd agree. However, morals, without people to practice them, would cease to exist. There's nothing universal about the moral value of slavery or killing someone.

[tackattack]

---

A-And as we become more interconnected language expands and words change definition, does this make them less usefull or useless?

Give me an example of "words changing definition", please.

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.

Yes, that may be true, but to think that we already know it, and have known for some time, when there are obvious contradictions to such morality in holy books, is a bit arrogant. More to the point, the assertion that a deity that no one can demonstrate objectively has mandated this morality is even more dubious.

I don't know if there are moral absolutes, but I'm fairly certain that such a thing isn't known by anyone definitively.

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.

Ok, I'll play along. Demonstrate to me that God exists.

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?

Law, definitions, and morality are all subjective. Of course there are gray areas. I thought you meant it more in terms of metaphysical/spiritual claims and how math can apply to those specific issues.

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.

Math, at its core, isn't subjective, as 2+2 would not cease to equal 4 just because humans don't exist. The main reason math is used is because it has universal applications and does not rely on subjectivity, not in the least. If you're talking about math as a descriptive concept of reality, then I'd agree. However, morals, without people to practice them, would cease to exist. There's nothing universal about the moral value of slavery or killing someone.

---

A-good article

B-I agree no one knows definetively if moral absolutes exist. I think things are indicactive towards us moving towards a better moral, therefore I'm assuming it is going somewhere and the best possible somewhere for it to go would be an absolute.

C-Every time I answer that question it kills the thread.. and I'm rather enjoying this one. I will give one example posteriori. Gary wants to do God's work and decides to help out our church food pantry. Well someone forgot to seal up the food earlier in the week and the veggies have all gone bad. 2 hours till people show up and no vegetables for the bags he's handing out. Typically grocery stores who donate to food banks have a specific day and person who picks up their (usually weekly) donations. Today is not our pickup day so Gary goes to a different grocery store and hopes there's some available, because he's broke. He goes in and speaks with the manager who's about to eat her breakfast and saying a little grace. He explains the situation and she comments about the guy who was supposed to pick up the donations yesterday from a different church cancelled and she was about to have them thrown out. He takes the load of fruits and veggies back. There's exactly enough for mirror amounts in every bag except for 1 bag is shy of kiwi. As the last few people are getting through the line there appears to be just enough bags for everyone today. A joke is made about the last person not getting a kiwi, and the old lady says "I'm allergic to kiwi anyways". Testimonials like this happen every day. They're not the looking for the reason behind 15 years of painful past rationalizations, they're synchronous. This particular example has happened in my church.

D-My point was math doesn't try and exclude gray areas by using variables and substitution, probably adding greatly to success. Religion unfortunately is seen in a good vs evil way and people leave out their place in the struggle, somewhere in the gray.

E-Math is a human concept and will cease when humans do. When a wild animal, untouched by human intervention, comes up with a math problem I'll conceed that. You're treating Math as a special case. A human concept is just that, subjectiively based off humans. If Math will exist after humans are gone, why not concept of God?

[tavarish]

---

[quote='tackattack' pid='61199' dateline='1269423842']

A-And as we become more interconnected language expands and words change definition, does this make them less usefull or useless?

Give me an example of "words changing definition", please.

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.

Yes, that may be true, but to think that we already know it, and have known for some time, when there are obvious contradictions to such morality in holy books, is a bit arrogant. More to the point, the assertion that a deity that no one can demonstrate objectively has mandated this morality is even more dubious.

I don't know if there are moral absolutes, but I'm fairly certain that such a thing isn't known by anyone definitively.

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.

Ok, I'll play along. Demonstrate to me that God exists.

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?

Law, definitions, and morality are all subjective. Of course there are gray areas. I thought you meant it more in terms of metaphysical/spiritual claims and how math can apply to those specific issues.

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.

Math, at its core, isn't subjective, as 2+2 would not cease to equal 4 just because humans don't exist. The main reason math is used is because it has universal applications and does not rely on subjectivity, not in the least. If you're talking about math as a descriptive concept of reality, then I'd agree. However, morals, without people to practice them, would cease to exist. There's nothing universal about the moral value of slavery or killing someone.

---

[tackattack]

A-context is a mix of definition and connotation- so yes the context does change, thus meaning changes. My point on A was that a conceptual morale absolute gives us a working platform to try to achieve with our everchanging subjective moral values.

B-I agree society doesn't operate under absolutes, and that we're adapting to our enviornment. Our enviornment moves towards entropy ( a constant) as does our operandi. Is it that hard to see that processes work from a variable to an ideal. Science tries to eliminate/control all variables for a sound solution that is consistantly constant. I'm just applying the same principles to moral development as a society.

C-If you can't see the breaking of probability in the RL events depicted then I don't think even God smacking you in the face, would convince you that he existed, and that is the definition of stubborn, closed-minded, unquestioning belief in your self-beliefs.
1-I don't
2-There were no people in line without food. If there were it would be evidenced that God allows some to suffer or perhaps allows them different avenues to fufill their needs.

D-Since his existence would rest outside our possible perspective it is a gray area.

E-And after humans are gone the concept of God will cease to be, and if he objectively exists and I can share his perspective after my death, I'd like to. The practicality of the now is that religion, morality and science all have avalue if used wisely. God creates, science creates, man uses the best he knows how both of theese things. There have been far more abuses of science than of nature against our fellow man.

[tavarish]

A-context is a mix of definition and connotation- so yes the context does change, thus meaning changes. My point on A was that a conceptual morale absolute gives us a working platform to try to achieve with our everchanging subjective moral values.

You original question had to do with words being more useful as they change in time. My only point was that they are made to describe our surroundings to the point where we acknowledge and digest the concept. I really don't get how a moral absolute, if there can be such a thing, would work, since I don't think it's a ladder, it's just an everlasting set of changes that simply follow its environment.

B-I agree society doesn't operate under absolutes, and that we're adapting to our enviornment. Our enviornment moves towards entropy ( a constant) as does our operandi. Is it that hard to see that processes work from a variable to an ideal. Science tries to eliminate/control all variables for a sound solution that is consistantly constant. I'm just applying the same principles to moral development as a society.

I don't agree that morals are working towards and ideal, as they are wholly dependent on the society administering them, and this is largely based on economic, social, and political influence, not to mention region.

In order to work towards something, you have to first recognize what "it" is. I don't think that we can work towards an absolute because absolute morality would pressupose absolute knowledge, as if you have a set of laws that are absolute, you'd have to know every situation in which they'd apply. I don't think that's possible, and what we're only moving towards is a better understanding of how our own society functions more efficiently, not necessarily an absolute.

By the way, consensus on morals do not make them absolute.

C-If you can't see the breaking of probability in the RL events depicted then I don't think even God smacking you in the face, would convince you that he existed, and that is the definition of stubborn, closed-minded, unquestioning belief in your self-beliefs.

I disagree. You can use rationalization all you want, but if it's not independently verifiable and subject to the same skepticism as any other claim in the world, then it has no stake in being considered valid.

I can say "My invisible dragon let you have food that day". What makes me wrong and you right?

1-I don't

So how can you make that assertion? Is a coincidence like this impossible?

2-There were no people in line without food. If there were it would be evidenced that God allows some to suffer or perhaps allows them different avenues to fufill their needs.

I'm not talking about people in your church. I'm talking about the people across the world who are starving, and would give their right arm for a kiwi, even if they were allergic to it. What does that say about God's existence? What does that say about his character?

It's easy to say that we're blessed because we live in a country that has an abundance of food, but it's not evidence that a God exists, as there are many more countries with a severe shortage of food and water.

D-Since his existence would rest outside our possible perspective it is a gray area.

No, the existence of God is not a gray area anymore than your existence is. The only difference is that we do not have evidence to support such a claim, so it is a null argument. You can't make the call either way, and to do so definitively would be foolish.

It also doesn't rest outside our possible perspective, as you don't know what could be possible in the future. Just because we havent found evidence to prove of disprove this, doesn't mean we don't unknowingly have the tools to make an objective observation and draw concrete facts from it.

E-And after humans are gone the concept of God will cease to be, and if he objectively exists and I can share his perspective after my death, I'd like to. The practicality of the now is that religion, morality and science all have avalue if used wisely.

Science has no stance on morality. It only strives to describe our universe in the most accurate way possible.
Religion imposes absolute morality. It strives to describe our universe, but has no methods of fact checking or verifying truth claims. Most monotheistic religions believe in an all encompassing creator, who created the Universe. End of story. Intellectual stagnation.

It is my personal opinion that religion is coming to the end of its rope. I think within the next 200 years, we'll see a drastic decrease in the amount of religiosity in the world.

God creates, science creates, man uses the best he knows how both of theese things.

Name ONE thing that has increased our understanding of the world that was only possible through belief in God.

There have been far more abuses of science than of nature against our fellow man.

I don't understand this. What's an abuse of nature against our fellow man?