Morality without Absolute Morality

Stopped_lurking said:

Not all infinite regresses seem to be vicious, are even all ontological or epidemiological vicious? You seemed to claim that this particular one is vicious, when you said that they drain away to nothing. It's your argument and you haven't shown it.

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

So you say, but even people who argue that they are possible/aren't incoherent admit that if we're looking for an explanation for why there is anything at all then infinite regresses are vicious.

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

it is only by changing what we're trying to explain that they can survive, so it's not on me to prove the viciousness but on anyone claiming them to be the case. Which if you're not defending such a position, why are you pressing me.

Click to expand...

Stopped_lurking said:

They do? Everyone?

Click to expand...

Stopped_lurking said:

Because you have a unsubstantiated presumption in your argument, as such it is not very convincing. That is my point.

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

The most prominent arguments, yes. I'm not aware of any that say otherwise, are you?

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

So you claim, but it's a simple fact not a presumption. If there is no original source of the sugar, there is no explanation for where the sugar came from.

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

Of course, arguing about infinite regresses is rather pointless since all they will ever be is hypotheticals since no one is actually able to provide such an infinite account.

Click to expand...

Stopped_lurking said:

Doesn't Peter Klein hold to infinitism in epistemology? If so it at least makes sense to ask you why you feel it must be vicious.

Click to expand...

Stopped_lurking said:

No. It is just your assertion.

Click to expand...

Stopped_lurking said:

Ok, we can leave it at that if you want to.

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

There are defenders, but that doesn't really show anything.

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

Nope, it's a reality. If not, what is the explanation for where the sugar came from?

Sure, though it's rather odd you press me and offer nothing by way of challenge other than basically saying "nuh uh".

Click to expand...

Stopped_lurking said:

Next Thursday?! I see we are working with closed time curves here I think it will be found to be caused by the "oorsakad" phenomenon. We won't know how it works, but it will explain everything. No I won't try to justify it, but please know that I'm right.

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

I find your claim of solipsism disingenuous..unless you don't know what that term means.

Click to expand...

partinobodycular said:

jonojim1337 said:

But going beyond just the religious pretext, I think we can see a personality from all walks of life, but showing the same traits.

Click to expand...

Can you tell me which traits you're referring to?

Also, can't this concept be extended to any set of traits? In that we can find people with these traits everywhere, not just in one specific subset of the population. For example, can we find Sadducees everywhere, or Zealots, or Samaritans?

And following this line of reasoning, should we really expect to find Christians only among the members of a specific religious group? Are we really to distinguish them solely by their adherence to a specific set of religious dogma? Or are there Christians everywhere? Even among the Gentiles, be they Muslims, or Buddhists, or agnostics, or atheists?

In other words, if we define people solely by their traits, i.e humility, honesty, patience, and mercy... who then are the Christians?

Click to expand...

partinobodycular said:

Normally I wouldn't go off topic like this, especially to respond to something as inconsequential as insults. But I thought that in this singular case I'd make an exception. Don't be surprised if I don't make a habit of it.

As to my solipsism, perhaps I should've been clearer, I'm an epistemological solipsist. Which simply holds that nothing can be known to exist outside of one's own mind. To me this term simply reminds me to be humble about just how much it is that I simply don't know. My profile says 'Agnostic', but that's simply because 'Solipsist' isn't one of the available choices, and to be honest, to me that's all that epistemological solipsism is... agnosticism pushed to its logical conclusion.

You also must've missed the post where I referred to myself as a Christian. Perhaps this post will better explain this seeming dichotomy:

Click to expand...