I did not say God allows things contrary to his plan. I am not even sure exactly what you mean by that. I said that he designed into his plans things that he hates.

I don’t say that we “should” start with a common goal and work backwards. I tried to point out that we already start there, and the problems appear where we deviate.

You continue to suggest that I’m pushing some absolute on you but I am not. I am asking that if our common goal is mutual benefit, then why is any absolute necessary? Why don’t we both make arguments which are based on (relative to) that goal? In other words, if your argument for limiting my freedom cannot be made based on mutual benefit, then what reason would I have to agree to it? If we disagree on what is ultimately beneficial (and we will) then let’s discuss why something is or isn’t ultimately beneficial, but not just revert to claims to absolutes. (I would have loved to have made it to this part of the discussion without being attacked as an anything-goes-er because I suggested that mutual benefit was a reasonable goal).

You also say that I’m asking you to “believe” me, but I’m not. I’m just deriving conclusions logically from things which I expect you already accept.

I did not “refuse to allow the assumption of the existence of God.” I refused to accept that his existence or nature could be self-contradicting. (however, that said, I do refuse to allow the assumption of existence to be used as a basis for argument)

My definition of “to know” was not close to your description of it. I do mean the “everyday” usage.

I am going to go ahead and explain this. I have no desire to get into a deep epistemological debate, because the everyday usage of “to know” is well understood, even if it is a bit tricky to articulate.

In a nutshell, the difference between knowing and believing is that one knows a thing when he believes it and has justification for believing it, and has justification for believing the justification and so on. This infinite regression would make nothing knowable except that in everyday usage of “to know”, context provides relevance which implies acceptable “givens” which need no justification within that context.

For example, I can say that as I type this, “I know that I am not moving anywhere.” This would “make sense” and be considered valid even though it is not absolutely true. The context of my statement simply suggests that the ground is to be considered stationary even though we can’t actually say it is, and also it is accepted that my senses are trustworthy.

I stated the obvious here, so this won’t be news to anyone, but what seems to be missed is that this illustrates what I have been defending, which is that “relativism” does not mean “anything goes” as is repeatedly suggested. Nor is knowledge useless because it is relative. Anyone who is able to understand the usefulness of the word “move” should be able to understand this principle.

There is no absolute that is known against which one can justify motion. And yet motion remains a well understood and useful concept (obviously).

Again this is not to say there are no absolutes, but that absolutes cannot be “known” according to even the common usage of the term, because of the nature of absolutes. Additionally our most well understood concepts are based on knowledge which is completely relative.

Well, I will not try to do for you what John Piper couldn’t. I have no problem whatsoever with the different nuances that the word “will” can take on in different contexts. I also have no such arrogance as to think that because he allows things contrary to his plan, that he can not still accomplish his goals.

Yes, I do believe we are as one sick. We have a moral depravity that God has allowed us to choose. Why, I don’t know, except that following the logical train either direction, allowing us choice is to His glory. Fortunately, as sick and dying men that we are, we also are offered the cure. Whether or not we choose to accept is our decision. I do not have two gods but One who is infinitely loving and just at the same time. Again,fortunately, in His justice and love, He has made a way for grace. But also in His love, His grace is not forced.

I have just re-read all these posts and one theme that continues to be apparent: this difference between the words believe and know. It seems to me that you are trying to make the word Believe to mean only “how you feel about something” and the word know to mean “to understand and aprehend in every possible way with no possibility of another explanation existing, however minute or fanciful”

I think that while that may be how the word ‘know’ is used in mathematics, in everyday practice that is not how people use the word. We know things because we have good reasons. Juries are instructed to make their decisions based on whether or not ‘reasonable doubt’ exists. Not invoking the ‘universal negative’ law. Are they ever wrong? Sure. Are they always wrong? No. Even most of the time? Of course not. This method is successful because it generally works.

Now, granted, here we are talking about absolutes. Specifically absolutes and whether or not they can be applied or invoked in decision making regarding government.

You essentially say we should start with a common goal and work backwards. The problem is that while we may all agree on what is beneficial for society, we more likely will not. We can not even agree on what a society is and who it includes.
Furthermore, once we reach this point of disagreement, the absolutes immediately become relevant. After all, why should I believe you? And you may ask why you should believe me. This is where the impasse is. No common goal. No common foundation.

You pointed out China to me in defense of your definition of a society that has benefitted from your method of decision making. This was in response to me pointing out the opposite. To me, the forced family sizes, the extreme poverty outside of the cities, the child labor, the persecution of Christian-type religious views, etc… is the opposite of a ‘benefitted society’, but you,on the other hand, point out the prosperity and commerce. I don’t want to discuss China, just to point out that our ideas are different.

I am going to sign out of this discussion at this point because we are at an impasse, your method of achieving the goal you want may work to achieve that goal, but that goal is not my goal. My goal is still to benefit society but I have a different idea of what society should look like and what would benefit it. ( Do not mistake this for what the Taliban does.Trying to do so is a straw man.) So what society will be comes down to who has the most power or numbers. And that fluctuates.

Your refusal to allow the assumtion of the existance of God reduces your idea of what a society should be to mere opinion. Why should I follow you? If your method will not admit to something so crucial as God, how can I know that your method will not at some point choose to eliminate him and those who defend his existance?

I will close with this quote from trappist monk Thomas Merton:
“In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave? Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?”

Alright, Warren, suit yourself. I can see that you are not interested in discussion but disagreement. You have constantly asserted from the beginning that your arguments were not relativistic and yet now you say that is the only argument that makes sense.

Melissa, all my arguments have been relativistic – I have not asserted otherwise. I have only objected to your labeling of me a “moral relativist” so that you could defeat what are essentially someone else’s beliefs. I do not assert that there are no absolutes. I am only arguing in terms of usefulness.

In other words, I have continually made arguments which are relative to that which is relevant. This is in contrast to your arguments which are relative to your beliefs. Your beliefs alone are not relevant.

You continue to assert that absolutes are relevant by virtue of their existence. But you don’t produce evidence of their existence, only insist that you have a right to believe them. I do not dispute this right, but your right to believe them would not make them relevant either.

You also keep implying that relativistic arguments are for some reason useless without some absolute. I have given examples of where the opposite is true.

So I am not just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I keep asking someone to explain in what way the concept of absolutes is actually useful.

I was feeling out your definition of “believe”

That’s fine, but your method was to ask a question. You then compared me to a politician for answering your question precisely.

The earth never changes shape so I don’t see why frame of reference makes much difference.

This statement is very misleading. The earth does change shape when one’s reference frame changes, but only for those whose reference frame changes. For those whose reference frame is not changing the earth’s shape doesn’t change. How can it be two shapes at once? Because shape is relative to spacetime.

Imagine drawing a circle on a rubber band then stretching that rubber band. The shape changes as you look down on that rubber band. But to any observer who is also superimposed on that rubber band, the shape would at the same time remain a circle because the observer is equally affected by the stretch.

This is mostly how it works with relativity, but instead of two dimensions of space, it is three dimensions of spacetime. There’s no “luminiferous aether” which is the absolute by which either observer can be judged. Both are correct in their reference frames.

The effect is small at low speeds, but nevertheless exists at any relative speed. An example of where conventional Newtonian physics is demonstrably incompatible is in GPS satellite systems, which must compensate for relativistic effects in order to operate.

As for the diabetes metaphor, if I understand correctly, you are saying that the drug might be treatment for a serious illness rather than an the agent of an addiction. And if we are to believe it is the former, we should believe that the creator despises the illness which he designed into his creation, etc.

You see, the issue here is that on the one hand, you give evidence that there is a God which is absolute, is the first cause, is omnipotent, and is responsible for everything which exists. But when it is convenient you employ another God which is the essence of what is good, despises some of the very things that the first designed, and yet unfortunately is essentially powerless to affect the design (or subvert the plan) of the first.

It isn’t the existence of one or the other that’s a problem. It’s the belief that both are the same thing, which is incoherent. I’ve already read John Piper’s attempt at “articulating it more clearly.” But Piper’s take is that it’s perfectly acceptable for God to will a thing “in one sense” (desire) and will the opposite “in another sense” (sovereign plan). Unfortunately, changing the words might have made the pill slippery enough to swallow, but it hasn’t made the result more coherent.

Your insinuation that I am not interested in an answer is silly. What motive could I have for that?

Two things come to mind:

One is that we are very quick to say to God, “Stay out, we’ll take over now and we’ll do a better job” and then in our arrogance proclaim that God, if he exists, is an irrational being, responsible for all the evil that befalls us.

Secondly, I would characterize the situation more like a Diabetic who needs insulin but decides not to believe in diabetes and therefore stops taking the insulin and behaves in the same way he always behaved. In one case we are talking about a recreational drug or opiate and in the other case, a life preserver meant to preserve not only life, but quality of life as well.

What if I’m wrong?

What if you are?

I did not ask a question in answer to yours because I was being pharisaical but because I was feeling out your definition of “believe”. All that you have expounded on is merely your belief and under that definition, I believe that God exists and is therefore relevant to the discussion. But if your definition of “believe” was something like a belief in Santa Clause, something without evidence and completely against the natural order of things then in that case I would say I “know” that God exists. I haven’t seen God himself any more that you have seen the shape of the earth from any frame of reference but from within it. The earth never changes shape so I don’t see why frame of reference makes much difference. But whatever, that is not my point.

And as to the God’s will thing, I see you constantly mischaracterizing the argument so I suggest that when you are truly interested in an answer, you talk to someone who will articulate it to you more clearly.

And this has been the subject of this whole thread: You continue to assert that there is no meaning without absolutes, and I continue to disagree. The shape of the earth is just another example. The fact that it isn’t absolute does not mean that I can make it be any shape I want. On the contrary, its shape is bound to the relevant reference frame and is determined by what best describes the observable data and makes accurate predictions in that frame. This is what makes the concept of “shape of the earth” useful. Saying that it is round just because it is, or because the Bible says so might appear to work in our reference frame, but is no more useful. Additionally it is prone to error. The Bible refers to the “circle” of the earth, which used to be interpreted as being a flat disc. Saying the earth was round was heresy. Even with the shape of the earth, absolutes are a useless concept. Absolute tends to be an illusion.

So I’m not dodging any question by answering in that way, I’m clarifying it. You accuse me of giving a politician answer, but yours was a politician question. Let’s not forget that your question was a response to a question that I asked first, “Do you know what is absolute or believe?” Your pharisee question suggested that knowing what is absolute was like knowing the shape of the earth. My answer both answered your question and explained why the two are not similar.

No, I am not saying that mathematical equations and formulas are all that can be known, but those are very good examples. However if you were going to disagree with the statement, then what else do you assert can be known besides these?

I don’t see any point in discussing this further since the position that you are vehemently defending is that you can’t possibly know anything relevant to this discussion for sure.

No, I’ve been defending the opposite. What I’ve been saying is that if “knowing for sure” is important, then it is absolutism that is useless, while “relativism” is quite useful. It is very useful to condemn stealing, for instance, because of its mutual detriment, because mutual detriment is relevant. It is not useful to say “because I believe it’s sin,” because your beliefs are neither absolute nor relevant.

Even in Quantum physics, I doubt that the effects truly precede the cause, I would guess that this is one of those things that does appear like that because of vantage point or measuring tools. Quantum physics is also VERY theoretical. I am not unfamiliar with the arguments that try and use it to “explain” first cause.

The effects do precede the cause in our three dimensional reference frame. The reason you doubt it is surely because you expect experiences in our reference frame (such as cause/effect/time) to extend to the quantum level.

Let me explain this a different way. You say quantum physics is very theoretical. That’s true. But gravity is also only a theory. Of course gravitational theory is far more established than is quantum theory, but it wasn’t always that way. Gravitational theory used to stipulate that everything fell “downwards” and downwards was considered an absolute. So when some suggested that the earth was a sphere, they were laughed to scorn by those who pictured people falling off the bottom and the sides. By considering “downward” to be an absolute, they essentially extended their reference frame beyond its relevancy.

Now you are saying that a theory in which an effect precedes its cause is a limitation of the tools because you consider a three dimensional reference frame to be absolute. You’ve essentially extended your reference frame beyond its relevancy. Quantum physics is not just Newtonian physics on a smaller scale. It is brand new physics, and quantum theory is the explanation which best predicts behavior at that level. I think you’ll find that scientists tend to be a picky bunch of people that are pretty smart and actually look for useful knowledge rather than spending all day trying to debunk deity.

without admiting to a God, you have no business bringing up evil since the very concept of moral evil requires a deity

I don’t need to acknowledge the actual existence of a deity or even a first cause in order to say, “if a first cause exists, then evil owes its existence to it.” The kind of evil that you describe requires a deity only because your use of the term implies a definition of “something against the will of deity.” Your statement is just begging the question.

You could say that he caused the possibility of evil but without it you would have to get rid of the possibility of free moral will. But then, without that, we wouldn’t be having this discission.

Did God not design the entire universe including its beginning, its end and all the predestined details in between? When God created the universe he programmed in every choice you’d ever make. He foreknew the evil and yet created it anyway. It was already his will, therefore, that we have this discussion. How can what you call free will be anything but an illusion?

It doesn’t matter whether the evil is “moral” evil or not, just whether it exists. I believe moral evil is still a subset of everything.

Considering a universe in which everything that exists owes its existence to a first cause, where nothing is truly random, where the beginning, end and every detail in between is predetermined, and yet those inside that universe have “free will.” I do not understand how anyone can reconcile that and yet be unable to reconcile principles of quantum theory or even relativity.

If your view is that nothing except mathematical equations and formulas can be known then I disagree with you. And furthermore, I don’t see any point in discussing this further since the position that you are vehemently defending is that you can’t possibly know anything relevant to this discussion for sure.

And aside: The word “evil” in Isaiah is not of the moral type. Besides, without admiting to a God, you have no business bringing up evil since the very concept of moral evil requires a deity. You could say that he caused the possibility of evil but without it you would have to get rid of the possibility of free moral will. But then, without that, we wouldn’t be having this discission.

You need to do a little more research on the Isaiah passage as we are talking about morality here.

No, we were talking about the nature of the first cause, because what I said was a response to your ontological argument from the Core Principles thread. I said that by the same argument the first cause must also be absolute evil. Your response was, “is light as much dark as it is light or is dark the absence of light?” I referenced Isaiah 45:7 in order to say that it makes no difference because God says that he is also the cause of darkness, so your question doesn’t change anything.

But the point is that if there’s a first cause, then anything in existence owes its existence to that first cause, including evil and malevolence. Luckily the very same verse also says that God creates evil.

This shouldn’t be a problem for anyone who can reconcile God’s two wills. If you don’t see a problem with God’s predestined design containing things he hates, then this should be of no concern to you.

“Turtles all the way down” illustrates absurdity in the link you gave…

You seem to have inferred that I meant to claim that an infinite stack of turtles was an intellectually tenable claim. That was not at all my intent. If anyone else inferred the same thing, I apologize.

What I am saying is that the claim that the causal chain cannot regress infinitely has never been a tenable a priori claim. And you’ve given no reason to believe it. So this was your assumption, but now you say:

My assumption is not only not baseless, it is nothing like you have described!

I described your assumption as being that the causal chain could not go on for infinity. Here’s what you actually said:

If something is set in motion, something else must have done it and so on and so on but not to infinity because that would require a first mover

This is the assumption I’ve describe, how is your assumption not like this? If it isn’t baseless, what’s the basis?

Artificial boundaries? You are the one who makes the ridiculous claim here, trend or no trend. If the trendsetters jump off a cliff will you then follow? This has nothing to do with what the most basic building blocks of life are and everything to do with who built them in the first place.

In the past, the “heavens” was assumed to be a canopy. This boundary is artificial. There is no such boundary and no reason to believe it doesn’t extend indefinitely. The elements were considered to be the most reducible component of matter. This boundary was artificial and we have found more reducible forms and no reason to believe that any such “most reducible” component even exists. It was assumed that sailing in one direction, one would eventually fall off the earth because it couldn’t go on infinitely. This boundary was artificial and false.

You are saying that the causal chain cannot go on forever because something has to be first. This boundary is artificial. The trend (or pattern) is that those who assume artificial boundaries are wrong. So the trend setter here is reality. (I have no idea why you think I am advocated the emulation of trend setters.)

In other words, you notice a pattern, in which every cause has, in turn, another cause. So you extended the pattern to be the causal chain. You then apply an artificial boundary to that chain. I’m saying that if you reached your conclusion based on the extension of a trend, then why should we not conclude you are incorrect based on the trend of people who assume artificial boundaries being incorrect?

There are two possible alternatives to first cause. The first is an infinite regression of causes. The second is circular causality, in which the causal chain is more like a loop than a line (note that within quantum physics effects may precede their causes, so this is theoretically possible).

As far as being an “Absolute agnostic”, using that line of reasoning, it’s as if you say, “I don’t know what I am talking about; and you can’t either.”

That would be true if I had said that it is not possible for one to know what he is talking about. But of course I didn’t say that. What I said was that it is not possible to know that any given authority is absolute.

In fact, I say that it is possible to “know” things. Certain a priori truths can be known. I know that two is greater than one. I know that if A is greater than B and B is greater than C then A is greater than C.

Do you KNOW the earth is round, or just believe?

I know that the earth is round in my reference frame, but since I do not know that my reference frame is absolute, I cannot say that I know that the earth is absolutely round.

An observer passing the earth at near light speed (relative to earth) would say that the earth is nearly flat and would be correct within his reference frame. A flat earth from such a reference frame is the only explanation in which all observable phenomena could be explained.

A rectangular map of the earth is a warped reference frame (warped from our perspective). In this frame the shortest distance between any two points is not a straight line, but a curve. The distance which represents a mile decreases as you recede from the equator. This is all due to the conceptual warping of spacetime necessary to view the earth’s surface as flat and rectangular. In this frame, the earth is flat.

So I don’t know that the earth is absolutely spherical because I don’t know any reference frame to be absolute. I only know that it is spherical in my reference frame. This is useful because we share the same reference frame. This is Einstein’s theory of relativity. Isn’t that a funny name?

In order to say that the earth is absolutely spherical, one must assume that his own reference frame is absolute. This assumption is not unlike the historical assumption that the earth was the absolute center of the universe.

So do you know what is absolute or believe?

I must say I entirely agree and have so appreciated your powerful and deep insight on this matter. I hope you enjoy the rest of this 1st day of April 2007.

Steve

You say:
““Turtles all the way down” is just a figure of speech representing “infinite regression,” a concept understood by many. Your whole argument is based on your assumption that infinite regression is impossible. What I pointed out was that all artificially applied boundaries to existential chains in the past have been proven false. Not only is your assumption baseless, it isn’t even supported by the trend.”

“Turtles all the way down” illustrates absurdity in the link you gave. It is also not at all scientific. This is why I say it looks like you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
You are willing to defend the absurd rather than admit to the logical conclusions based on things that are scientifically much more likely. My assumption is not only not baseless, it is nothing like you have described! Artificial boundaries? You are the one who makes the ridiculous claim here, trend or no trend. If the trendsetters jump off a cliff will you then follow? This has nothing to do with what the most basic building blocks of life are and everything to do with who built them in the first place.
The boundaries currently held to be the most basic may change at any time according to new research and learning. This has never affected my position and, in fact, still requires a beginning.

As far as being an “Absolute agnostic”, using that line of reasoning,
it’s as if you say, “I don’t know what I am talking about; and you can’t either.”

Do you KNOW the earth is round, or just believe?