Assumptions about the Christ event
In the midst of our debate about objective language and the law of noncontradiction TP questioned some of the assumptions he believed I was making in determining that a Christ event is necessary in order for our universe to be consistent if the moral law was real. I thought it best to touch on them in a new thread so that we can try and come to a understanding before we move to the final issue in our discussion which is the reality of the moral law. I’ll take the questions one at a time.
IF moral law is real
Of course this is an assumption on my part at this point. I have yet to make my case for the reality of the moral law and have repeatedly pointed out that my argument is conditioned on that very thing. We will have plenty of time to discuss this when I do I’m not sure why you keep bringing this up. Have patience.
I would point out that you have not given any positive evidence to support your contention that moral law is not real as of yet and remind you that the vast majority of people through out history have held my position in this matter. This is true even among Atheists. Even if I fail to convince you that the moral law is real you will still have to concede that your denial is based only on your own minority opinion and not on some objective standard.
IF moral law is directly tied to the physics of our universe.
To this I would ask, do you know of any Natural Law that is not tied directly to the physics of the universe? This is the case with physical laws and mathematical laws and even logical laws. At times quantum events appear to defy natural laws like the law of causation the fact that we notice this and offer explanations for it is proof that we expect natural laws to effect the physical universe.
Law that has no physical effects is not a law at all according to our definition. Wouldn’t you agree?
IF moral law requires a balance to be maintained.
It is not the moral law that requires a balance it is consistency. Every apparent violation of natural law must be compensated by an equal and opposite compensation.
If you see a decrease in entropy in one part of the universe it must be compensated by a corresponding increase somewhere else.
If you see an apparent violation of the laws of gravity by a rocket it must be compensated by a corresponding expenditure of energy from the engine.
An apparent violation of natural law with of no corresponding compensation is impossible in our universe. Remember our definition of natural law
Law: a statement of a “scientific” fact or phenomenon that is invariable under given conditions
IF said morality balance can only be obtained by punishing a willing innocent?
A compensating sacrifice must be innocent for the same reason that a rocket does not compensate for its own apparent violation of the law of gravity by falling to earth. The energy that is needed to compensate must come from a source that is not itself an apparent violation of the natural law.
In the same way to force an innocent to compensate for another’s wrong is itself an apparent violation of the moral law so it cannot compensate for said violations.
IF only law giver(s) can qualify as a willing innocent.
Since you will not agree that that the law of non contradiction must apply to the cosmos I understand why you have a hard time understanding this qualification.
I agree that if the cosmos has no requirement to be consistent with itself then a compensating sacrifice has no need to be the lawgiver that does not enforce his own law. One of the downsides of this refusal to use logic universally however is that you will never know if the lawgiver himself is just. You will only know that the observable universe is. I believe that is too high a price to pay to maintain total relativism but to each his own.
If on the other hand we have historic proof that the sacrifice was also the Law giver himself we suddenly have real important information about the Cosmos as a whole and not just the observed universe.
IF there is only one law giver (not a plurality or even a democracy).
For the purpose of our discussion it does not matter how big the legislative body is, only that it’s federal representative is in the end responsible for the laws it creates. Once again if we decide that it does not matter that cosmos is consistent with itself the requirement that the sacrifice also compensate for the unjust lawgiver no longer holds.
In a radically relativist world whether or not the sacrifice is the Lawgiver becomes a Historic question rather than a philosophic or scientific one.
All that is necessary in such a world is in that that the sacrifice be willing innocent and have a proper relationship to the violator being compensated for.
Peace
In the midst of our debate about objective language and the law of noncontradiction TP questioned some of the assumptions he believed I was making in determining that a Christ event is necessary in order for our universe to be consistent if the moral law was real. I thought it best to touch on them in a new thread so that we can try and come to a understanding before we move to the final issue in our discussion which is the reality of the moral law. I’ll take the questions one at a time.
IF moral law is real
Of course this is an assumption on my part at this point. I have yet to make my case for the reality of the moral law and have repeatedly pointed out that my argument is conditioned on that very thing. We will have plenty of time to discuss this when I do I’m not sure why you keep bringing this up. Have patience.
I would point out that you have not given any positive evidence to support your contention that moral law is not real as of yet and remind you that the vast majority of people through out history have held my position in this matter. This is true even among Atheists. Even if I fail to convince you that the moral law is real you will still have to concede that your denial is based only on your own minority opinion and not on some objective standard.
IF moral law is directly tied to the physics of our universe.
To this I would ask, do you know of any Natural Law that is not tied directly to the physics of the universe? This is the case with physical laws and mathematical laws and even logical laws. At times quantum events appear to defy natural laws like the law of causation the fact that we notice this and offer explanations for it is proof that we expect natural laws to effect the physical universe.
Law that has no physical effects is not a law at all according to our definition. Wouldn’t you agree?
IF moral law requires a balance to be maintained.
It is not the moral law that requires a balance it is consistency. Every apparent violation of natural law must be compensated by an equal and opposite compensation.
If you see a decrease in entropy in one part of the universe it must be compensated by a corresponding increase somewhere else.
If you see an apparent violation of the laws of gravity by a rocket it must be compensated by a corresponding expenditure of energy from the engine.
An apparent violation of natural law with of no corresponding compensation is impossible in our universe. Remember our definition of natural law
Law: a statement of a “scientific” fact or phenomenon that is invariable under given conditions
IF said morality balance can only be obtained by punishing a willing innocent?
A compensating sacrifice must be innocent for the same reason that a rocket does not compensate for its own apparent violation of the law of gravity by falling to earth. The energy that is needed to compensate must come from a source that is not itself an apparent violation of the natural law.
In the same way to force an innocent to compensate for another’s wrong is itself an apparent violation of the moral law so it cannot compensate for said violations.
IF only law giver(s) can qualify as a willing innocent.
Since you will not agree that that the law of non contradiction must apply to the cosmos I understand why you have a hard time understanding this qualification.
I agree that if the cosmos has no requirement to be consistent with itself then a compensating sacrifice has no need to be the lawgiver that does not enforce his own law. One of the downsides of this refusal to use logic universally however is that you will never know if the lawgiver himself is just. You will only know that the observable universe is. I believe that is too high a price to pay to maintain total relativism but to each his own.
If on the other hand we have historic proof that the sacrifice was also the Law giver himself we suddenly have real important information about the Cosmos as a whole and not just the observed universe.
IF there is only one law giver (not a plurality or even a democracy).
For the purpose of our discussion it does not matter how big the legislative body is, only that it’s federal representative is in the end responsible for the laws it creates. Once again if we decide that it does not matter that cosmos is consistent with itself the requirement that the sacrifice also compensate for the unjust lawgiver no longer holds.
In a radically relativist world whether or not the sacrifice is the Lawgiver becomes a Historic question rather than a philosophic or scientific one.
All that is necessary in such a world is in that that the sacrifice be willing innocent and have a proper relationship to the violator being compensated for.
Peace
posted by Fifth Monarchy Man at
5:29 AM
10 Comments
