Are Morals Relative, Progressive, Objective, Absolute, Other?

[cvanwey]

Sure you were (at least, in your opinion). That's why you created your strawman instead of asking for clarification, and why you didn't address the post once clarification was given.

If you do not want to address my responses given, that's fine. Don't.

 

[Phil 1:21]

If you do not want to address my responses given, that's fine. Don't.

I don't address strawmen.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't address strawmen.

You appear more concerned with trying to drill an arbitrary and unintended point, then to see the genuine nature of my responses. So have at it. But it will not address anything in which I'm saying. You will instead just be attempting to banter over manutiae.

So as I stated prior, I was a believer, and now have doubt. I'm asking for proof of existence of an absolute moral agent. And yes, well more than one claimed moral agent is claimed to exist (all with differing and conflicting claimed objective moral tenets.) If you wish to instead continue to rubber stamp fallacies, then please just move along.

Thnx

 

[Phil 1:21]

You appear more concerned with trying to drill an arbitrary and unintended point, then to see the genuine nature of my responses. So have at it. But it will not address anything in which I'm saying. You will instead just be attempting to banter over manutiae.

I responded to another poster, you interjected with a strawman, I refused to allow you to derail me with it, and here we are…again.

I'm asking for proof of existence of an absolute moral agent.

This is the Ethics & Morality subforum. If you want to start an apologetics thread, there’s a different subforum for that. Perhaps it would be more to your liking.

For what it’s worth, looking for proof and simply looking for arguments aren’t the same thing. If you're genuinely looking for "proof" perhaps it would be helpful to explain what "proof" you would find acceptable.

 

[SPF]

Faith is belief instead of evidence. Faith is belief without question. Faith is pretending to know something unknown. Faith is possibly continuing to choose to retain an original position, in spite of overwhelming opposing evidence.

That isn't what faith is. A good working definition of faith can be found in Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. "

Faith doesn't need to be blind faith. Dr.William Lane Craig's ministry is called Reasonable Faith. You should look into his website, you may find it more beneficial than here.

There is substance and evidence to a Christian's faith. But at the end of the day, it is still faith, not knowledge.

Meaning, I need evidence of the actual moral arbiter. Until then, I remain undecided. Hence, ask for evidence on this forum, which I have been unable to obtain on my own.

The level of evidence you seem to be requiring is nothing short of a physical manifestation of God in front of you actually speaking. Honestly, I don't think anyone on this forum is ever going to be able to satisfy you in regards to the level of evidence you're seeking.

Have you read Mere Christianity, by CS. Lewis? It was the moral argument that actually lead him towards Christ, and he goes into it in his book. I would recommend reading it if you have not.

 

[Phil 1:21]

The level of evidence you seem to be requiring is nothing short of a physical manifestation of God in front of you actually speaking.

God did that once. It ended with Him nailed to a cross.

Can you please provide your definition of faith?. I will gladly give you mine, in the mean time.

Faith is belief instead of evidence. Faith is belief without question. Faith is pretending to know something unknown. Faith is possibly continuing to choose to retain an original position, in spite of overwhelming opposing evidence.

And yet time and again we see people being led to Christ by examining the evidence while questioning His very existence.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You appear more concerned with trying to drill an arbitrary and unintended point, then to see the genuine nature of my responses. So have at it. But it will not address anything in which I'm saying. You will instead just be attempting to banter over manutiae.

So as I stated prior, I was a believer, and now have doubt. I'm asking for proof of existence of an absolute moral agent. And yes, well more than one claimed moral agent is claimed to exist (all with differing and conflicting claimed objective moral tenets.) If you wish to instead continue to rubber stamp fallacies, then please just move along.

Thnx

There is little difference in the moral tenets of the various religions, or secular thought for that matter. The difference is in the 'doing', not just the 'hearing'.

 

[cvanwey]

I responded to another poster, you interjected with a strawman, I refused to allow you to derail me with it, and here we are…again.

This is the Ethics & Morality subforum. If you want to start an apologetics thread, there’s a different subforum for that. Perhaps it would be more to your liking.

For what it’s worth, looking for proof and simply looking for arguments aren’t the same thing. If you're genuinely looking for "proof" perhaps it would be helpful to explain what "proof" you would find acceptable.

Your definition of 'proof' and my definition of proof, I would assume, clearly differs. So why not actually present what you've actually got as your best piece of evidence for this one and only moral arbiter. And then please attempt to 'justify' why your provided 'proof' is the 'correct' and 'suitable' method to valid your 'proof'. Instead, it seems you possess an ethnocentric attitude, where I fully admit I'm in search for answers (and am undecided). I would really like know why you are so certain? So please, give me your best reason, as to why your believed specific moral arbiter, is the correct absolute authority, and all others, who's moral values differ, are incorrect????

From my estimation, proof of a specific monotheistic deity IS necessary, when claiming absolute morality... The entire premise of any claimed absolute morality, is by appealing to some standard (i.e.) absolute standard. So YES, proof of existence to this one claimed absolute standard is very much in context, and related to the claims of objective/absolute moral values and duties.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Your definition of 'proof' and my definition of proof, I would assume, clearly differs.

Perhaps, but you are the one demanding proof without defining what you would constitute as such. Why should anyone waste their time kicking toward your ever-moving goalposts? Your posts speak to someone looking for arguments, not evidence.

 

[cvanwey]

That isn't what faith is. A good working definition of faith can be found in Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. "

Faith doesn't need to be blind faith. Dr.William Lane Craig's ministry is called Reasonable Faith. You should look into his website, you may find it more beneficial than here.

There is substance and evidence to a Christian's faith. But at the end of the day, it is still faith, not knowledge.

The level of evidence you seem to be requiring is nothing short of a physical manifestation of God in front of you actually speaking. Honestly, I don't think anyone on this forum is ever going to be able to satisfy you in regards to the level of evidence you're seeking.

Have you read Mere Christianity, by CS. Lewis? It was the moral argument that actually lead him towards Christ, and he goes into it in his book. I would recommend reading it if you have not.

Thank you for your honest response. I have actively searched for proof for decades. But here's the dealio...

At the end of the day, I either believe or I don't. I'm honest in stating that currently, I pretty much don't (or am a severe skeptic). Why? Because when I read the Bible, and compare many of it's claims to apparent 'known' reality, they vastly differ to me.

Now, does this mean the Bible is false? When speaking of 'actual truth', I'm not at liberty to say... However, belief is required. I cannot tell myself what to believe any more than I can tell myself not to believe Italy exists, and actually mean it. Whether I'm actually right or not, is not really the issue.

I cannot honestly invoke faith, if I'm to be intellectually honest with myself.

So circling this back to absolute morals. Though I agree morals are ungrounded as absolute without some grounding standard, I'm asking to demonstrate which one is actually the true one? Anyone whom appeals to an absolute standard must demonstrate that this very specific moral agent exists. This is basically step one of such a case. I'm just purely honest with myself, that I can pretty much no longer accept the one I was raised upon (Christianity), for too many pieces of alternative evidence presented.

So if someone has the 'smoking gun' answer, I'm all ears? And like you said, they probably don't.

And yes, I have explored C.S. Lewis and WLC quite extensively.

 

[cvanwey]

Perhaps, but you are the one demanding proof without defining what you would constitute as such. Why should anyone waste their time kicking toward your ever-moving goalposts? Your posts speak to someone looking for arguments, not evidence.

Read the post right below the one you just submitted. I would agree the 'goal posts' appear to move. But they do so for a very good reason, in my estimation....

The OP asks if morals are relative, objective, absolute, etc. If one claims absolute, then step one logically might mean to demonstrate the existence of this very specific claimed absolute standard.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Read the post right below the one you just submitted. I would agree the 'goal posts' appear to move. But they do so for a very good reason, in my estimation....

The OP asks if morals are relative, objective, absolute, etc. If one claims absolute, then step one logically might mean to demonstrate the existence of this very specific claimed absolute standard.

Of course, because it keeps you from having to acknowledge when someone splits the uprights.

 

[cvanwey]

Of course, because it keeps you from having to acknowledge when someone splits the uprights.

I politely ask that you no longer respond to my posts. I have tried to present my position, but you instead appear more concerned with trying to 'one up me.' It appears very juvenile.

If you are going to claim a very specific absolute moral arbiter (and you clearly do), which differs from the many differing claimed absolute moral arbiters, please expect others to ask why yours is the correct one, while also explaining how theirs is the incorrect one.

Peace

 

[Phil 1:21]

I politely ask that you no longer respond to my posts. I have tried to present my position, but you instead appear more concerned with trying to 'one up me.' It appears very juvenile.

If you are going to claim a very specific absolute moral arbiter (and you clearly do), which differs from the many differing claimed absolute moral arbiters, please expect others to ask why yours is the correct one, while also explaining how theirs is the incorrect one.

Peace

Actually, you haven't. You request people provide you "proof," yet you refuse to state what you would accept as such. Instead you dodge around and throw up strawmen like it's a scarecrow building contest.

 

[SPF]

cvanwey: I too would be interested in knowing what you consider "proof" You've already said you reject Scripture and sound arguments such as the moral argument, cosmological argument, etc...

Personally, I think the level of proof you're seeking is simply unattainable. Faith will always be required on some level. if it was possible to know that God exists, then faith would not be necessary, and you're talking to people who believe that faith is necessary. Though again, I would emphasize that it's not a blind faith, but a reasonable faith.

 

[cvanwey]

Actually, you haven't. You request people provide you "proof," yet you refuse to state what you would accept as such. Instead you dodge around and throw up strawmen like it's a scarecrow building contest.

Nope, the thread can go in several directions, based upon how one may answer. I then respond to the way they answer. In your case, you state morals are absolute. Okay, lets test this...

You are a female walking down the street. Someone comes up to you and tells you that you are to where a Hijab in public. You do not agree. Why not?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Nope, the thread can go in several directions, based upon how one may answer. I then respond to the way they answer. In your case, you state morals are absolute. Okay, lets test this...

You are a female walking down the street. Someone comes up to you and tells you that you are to where a Hijab in public. You do not agree. Why not?

I'm not chasing your goal posts until your dig a frost footing and anchor them.

So then, what would you consider "proof"? (staying on track...)

 

[cvanwey]

cvanwey: I too would be interested in knowing what you consider "proof" You've already said you reject Scripture and sound arguments such as the moral argument, cosmological argument, etc...

Personally, I think the level of proof you're seeking is simply unattainable. Faith will always be required on some level. if it was possible to know that God exists, then faith would not be necessary, and you're talking to people who believe that faith is necessary. Though again, I would emphasize that it's not a blind faith, but a reasonable faith.

Okay, that's understandable....

- Evolutionary theory severely conflicts with Genesis
- The Bible does not appear to demonstrate 'eyewitness' accounts for a Jesus' resurrection, but is instead hearsay, oral tradition, and legendary tales mostly (aside from Sal/Paul).
- I can't get myself to believe in the supernatural.

These are good starting points....

But circling it back to 'absolute morality'. I trust most here recognize that even if one acknowledges an absolute standard, one has no choice to demonstrate which absolute standard is the actual one. Jesus and Muhammad have differing objective claimed moral values. So it would only make sense to investigate the claims from each, and compare them to known reality.

When one replies with morals being relative or subject, there really is no need to reply. This kinda appears the default answer and warrants no further discussing, again, in my estimation.

 

[SPF]

I cannot tell myself what to believe any more than I can tell myself not to believe Italy exists, and actually mean it.

I don't entirely agree with this. When I walked into my office this morning, I sat in my chair because I believed it would hold me up. I didn't know whether or not it would hold me up, but I chose to believe, based upon historical evidence that it would. And so I sat. But I made the choice to believe that it would hold me up, even if it was subconscious.

Likewise, my wife has told me that she is making dinner and that it should be ready when I get home. I have a choice. I can either choose to believe her and come home hungry. Or I can choose to believe that she's not going to, and stop and grab something on the way home.

You make a lot more choices during your day about what to believe and what not to believe than I think you may realize. And those choices are probably all based upon historical evidence and personal experience.

Though I agree morals are ungrounded as absolute without some grounding standard, I'm asking to demonstrate which one is actually the true one? Anyone whom appeals to an absolute standard must demonstrate that this very specific moral agent exists.

There are lots of strong arguments for Christianity, and the moral argument is one. The problem here though is that you're really beating a dead horse. You've read the arguments, and you've chosen to reject them.

Personally, I look at creation and it seems more reasonable to me that God exists than not existing. I look at history, and see a common moral belief throughout it which to me is evidence of a universal moral law. The variances in moral beliefs, I find adequately accounted for through Scriptures teaching on sin and its implications. You don't find these arguments convincing, and that's your prerogative.

But at the end of the day, whatever you believe is going to be based upon faith.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm not chasing your goal posts until your dig a frost footing and anchor them.

So then, what would you consider "proof"? (staying on track...)

Again, you made no attempt to answer (any) of my reply.... But I will still answer yours anyways. I will start with one small example...

Demonstrate prayer being answered, which would not include any known possible natural based answer. (i.e.)

To our knowledge, amputees cannot grow back limbs. People claim God cures illnesses, and the like... However, some of these cures could also be from medical intervention, natural processes, etc... (all natural). Meaning, one does not know if it was from prayer, treatment, natural healing processes, other...?

Now, if someone's limb grew back, this would be cause for investigation. There exists no medical demonstration of a human limb growing back. If the limb grew back, this might demonstrate two points, in favor of theism...

1) God may have answered the prayer
2) The specific God prayed to exists, because the limb returned after prayer

Now would this convert me on the spot. Not necessarily. I admit I'm a skeptic. But it would sure peak my interest. And since there are many verses in the Bible, which state ALL prayer is answered, I find it interesting many will say prayer is answered at God's pace. And yet, the person will still die with the prayed for attribute unattended. Meaning, the amputated limb being restored postmortem would be nonsense.

*****************

Okay, now circling back to YOU. Why are YOU so certain YOUR specific absolute moral agent, is the correct absolute moral agent, while someone in India, whom adhere's to a differing set of moral absolute values is incorrect?