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:
Excuse the delay, I have been out of town on business. I am still on travel and don't want to get into too heavy of a discussion at this exact moment.
I will go through point by point later, but for now I want to verify how detailed I need to get.
In previous exchanges, you indicated that you understood my distinction between ethics and morals.
I have offered supporting evidence that animals and humans are genetically inclined to detect and react in certain ways to unethical situations.
I suggest we get angry when we see unfairness because of genetic programming. The same kind of genetic programming that tends to make us inherently more afraid of snakes than of rabbits.
Do I need to spell out the evidence we inherently (genetically) react to unfairness, or will you agree to that?
If it isn't obvious, my explanation for why humans have historically thought there is an absolute moral law is because of these inherited feelings.
I suggest you need to explain how and why "moral law" is more than shared human feelings that has been codified in order to enforce civilized behavior.
Hey TP
You said:
Excuse the delay
I say:
I completely understand please don’t hurry on my account
You say:
In previous exchanges, you indicated that you understood my distinction between ethics and morals.
I say:
I do understand your distinction in fact I would say that what you are calling ethics is more accurately called anti-morals. Often the moral law is in direct opposition to them.
You say:
I suggest you need to explain how and why "moral law" is more than shared human feelings that has been codified in order to enforce civilized behavior.
I say:
I will try after we can come to an agreement that the Christ event is necessary given the truth of the moral law.
Right now I will just sat that “shared Human feelings codified to enforce civilized behavior” are often exactly what the moral law condemns as in the case of infanticide and slavery.
Peace
Hey TP,
Providentially I just found this. It presents a good quick overview of what I see is the difference between ethics and morals. Instead of ethics it uses the term values but the idea is the same
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php
PS
it’s worth the link just to get you to go to the website of the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary ;-)
Peace
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man.
Back to our list of subjects...
1. IF moral law is real
You wrote...
"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."
I can not objectively prove a negative. My belief/understanding of ethical behavior is based on objective evidence.
What is your "objective standard"?
Is it that billions of religious followers can't be wrong?
My philosophical position is that I think for myself. Unless I recognize it as real it isn't real for all practical purposes.
Your quote from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was pretty much as I expected.
The problem with that is that the devil is in the details. Surely, state sponsered murder (executions) should be clearly a violation of Moral Law.
Things like this require rationalization. "Thou shalt not kill" gives way to "Eye for an Eye".
"Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religon" becomes "One Nation, under God" and "In God we Trust".
It is the dismissal of values and ethics in the face of some absolute morality that I find dangerous. It provides signifiant power to organized religons, be it Christianity or its kissing cousin, Islam.
2. IF moral law is directly tied to the physics of our universe.
You asked...
"To this I would ask, do you know of any Natural Law that is not tied directly to the physics of the universe?"
...and...
"Law that has no physical effects is not a law at all according to our definition. Wouldn’t you agree?"
I suggest you are playing semantic games of equivocation. Would you say the law of diminishing returns is directly tied to the physics of the universe? Scientific laws are observations. If the law appears to be violated, it is the law that changes, not the universe.
Please don’t argue the law of diminishing returns is not a natural law (no true Scottsman fallacy), because diminishing returns is definitely prevalent in nature, especially in the Theory of Evolution.
I trust that you understand the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory. The law of gravity is the observation that massive objects appear to attract each other. The Theory of Gravity tries to explain this “law”.
I suggest you are avoiding the words “Theory of Morality” because of the connotations of the words. However, your Theory of Morality is just that. A theory that involves something called a Christ Event.
Your attempt to claim a scientific law forces a specific explanation would be similar to arguing gravitational law forces the existence of gravitational fields and it couldn’t possibly be due to space curvature.
3. IF moral law requires a balance to be maintained.
You wrote…
”Law: a statement of a “scientific” fact or phenomenon that is invariable under given conditions.”
Scientific facts under given conditions is also known as “experimental data”. Do you have any?
The destruction of the Twin Towers?
Governmental executions?
4. IF said morality balance can only be obtained by punishing a willing innocent?
You wrote…
“…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.”
Experiments?
5. IF only law giver(s) can qualify as a willing innocent.
You wrote…
”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.”
You talk like the true measure of reality is thinking for yourself. That is what I am doing.
6. IF there is only one law giver (not a plurality or even a democracy).
”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.”
I consider a historic question to be a scientific one.
I agree what you are suggesting is a philosophical/religious question. To these, I think it is the wise man who knows he doesn’t know the Truth.
You said:
What is your "objective standard"?<
I say:
Patience man, I’ll bet you used to seek a peek at Christmas presents as a kid
you Said:
My philosophical position is that I think for myself. Unless I recognize it as real it isn't real for all practical purposes.
I say:
This quote will come in handy when we discuss the reality of the moral law.
You say:
The problem with that is that the devil is in the details. Surely, state sponsered murder (executions) should be clearly a violation of Moral Law.
I say:
I think so. But I don’t intend to argue the details of the law only it’s reality. That is when we get to it.
You say:
Would you say the law of diminishing returns is directly tied to the physics of the universe?
I say:
Yes although we have yet to formulate it in a sufficiently rigid way. Its like the law of what goes up must come down it accurate but vague.
You say:
your Theory of Morality is just that. A theory that involves something called a Christ Event.
I say:
I hadn’t given it that much thought but I guess you could say that my argument is a theory because it could in principle be tested I suppose. Find a violation of natural law that is not compensated for and my “theory” fails. Find a compensation that does not correspond to the apparent violation and my theory fails. All this time I was thinking of my argument as a self-evident truth but I guess it’s science cool.
You say:
Scientific facts under given conditions is also known as “experimental data”. Do you have any?
I say:
If you mean about the reality of the Moral law the answer is yes all in good time.
You say:
You talk like the true measure of reality is thinking for yourself. That is what I am doing.
I say:
You haven’t been peaking at my final post have you?
you say:
I consider a historic question to be a scientific one.
I say:
Cool!!!! so you agree that the question of whether Jesus was resurrected thus validating his claims to divinity a scientific one since it happened in history. Cool at last the walls of NOMA have been breached maybe later we can the implications of said event to our discussion
You say:
I agree what you are suggesting is a philosophical/religious question. To these, I think it is the wise man who knows he doesn’t know the Truth.
I say:
No take backs you said it was scientific and I’m going to hold you to it
Peace
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man.
We seem to have lost the nice organized list of topics and the logic chain associated with them. Let me renew...
1. IF moral law is real
You wrote...
"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."
I asked...
"What is your "objective standard"?"
You wrote...
"Patience man, I’ll bet you used to seek a peek at Christmas presents as a kid"
I can be patent. I have my ethical explanation supported with scientific research.
It is your proposal that requires this first of many preconditions, not mine.
2. IF moral law is directly tied to the physics of our universe.
I wrote...
"Your Theory of Morality is just that. A theory that involves something called a Christ Event."
You wrote...
"I hadn’t given it that much thought but I guess you could say that my argument is a theory because it could in principle be tested I suppose. ... All this time I was thinking of my argument as a self-evident truth but I guess it’s science cool."
I doubt you can get official recognition for it, but I thought this was the point of our discussion. A "self-evident truth" is a philosophical position. I can't very well embrace NOMA and argue you are not entitled to whatever "self-evident truth" you wish to believe. However, I can argue against scientific hypotheses using the rules of science.
Which brings us to the next issue you need to address...
3. IF moral law requires a balance to be maintained.
You wrote…
”Law: a statement of a “scientific” fact or phenomenon that is invariable under given conditions.”
I wrote...
"Scientific facts under given conditions is also known as “experimental data”. Do you have any?"
You wrote…
"If you mean about the reality of the Moral law the answer is yes all in good time."
I can be patient.
4. IF said morality balance can only be obtained by punishing a willing innocent?
I am still waiting for experimental data in support of this scientific (not philosophical) concept.
I can be patient.
5. IF only law giver(s) can qualify as a willing innocent.
I wrote…
"You talk like the true measure of reality is thinking for yourself. That is what I am doing."
You wrote...
"You haven’t been peaking at my final post have you?"
I can be patient.
6. IF there is only one law giver (not a plurality or even a democracy).
I wrote...
"I consider a historic question to be a scientific one."
You wrote...
"Cool!!!! so you agree that the question of whether Jesus was resurrected thus validating his claims to divinity a scientific one since it happened in history."
One step at a time. The existence of a certain wandering Rabbi is a historical question. Even his alleged return after being "dead" for three days can be considered a historical question.
The status of his divinity, on the other hand, is a philosophical issue. The very idea of anything being divine conflicts with my base religious outlook. To you it is a "self-evident truth".
I can't say you are wrong, but I won't agree that you are right either.
Hey TP,
You said:
We seem to have lost the nice organized list of topics and the logic chain associated with them.
I say:
I agree and I apologize for this format I thought it would be a good way for us to have a discussion but it is proving difficult for both of us. I wish I could invite you down to the dinner for a slice of pie it would be a lot simpler.
It looks like we can narrow are discussion down a bit since we have agreed to remove the Cosmos from our discussion because of your refusal to accept that logic is universal
It seems that your remaining objections come in three categories
1) you think that my argument only holds if the moral law is real
2) you want support for my contention that apparent violations of natural law must be compensated for
3) you want support for my contention that a Christ event is the only valid compensation for said violations
As for number one you need to remember two things, first I conditioned my argument on the moral law being real. If it’s not it does not hold it’s that simple.
Next I promise to give an evidence based argument for the Moral Law if we can only come to an understanding on categories 2 and 3. I believe it would be helpful to refrain from any more discussion about number 1 till then.
As for category 2 I would submit that every known apparent violation of natural law is compensated for. This is a prediction that has been tested many many times for example the refrigerator with a hot compressor and the rocket with an empty fuel tank. Can you think of any evidence to falsify it?
The best way to address category three is to ask you if you know of any other way apparent violations of Moral Law can be compensated for. I can’t think of any but I’m open to suggestions. If you like I can phrase this in the form a testable negative prediction as well
No compensations for apparent violations of the natural law are possible with out a Christ event. Let the experiments begin!!!!
Now for some house cleaning
You said :
A "self-evident truth" is a philosophical position
I said:
When I said my argument is self evident truth I meant that it was necessarily part of your argument “the universe will do what ever it takes to be consistent with itself”
A person can’t consistently hold your position with out holding mine.
That’s all I’m saying
You said;
The existence of a certain wandering Rabbi is a historical question. Even his alleged return after being "dead" for three days can be considered a historical question.
The status of his divinity, on the other hand, is a philosophical issue. The very idea of anything being divine conflicts with my base religious outlook
So therefore you would not believe even if you saw someone rise from the dead? Where have I heard that before? Hint (Luke 16:30-31)
So just what would you say to someone who claimed that his resurrection was proof of his divinity? Would you say “I don’t know the Truth do you” or “This conflicts with my Religious outlook”? LOL
Peace
Hi
fifthMonarchMan
Sorry, I didnt have your email
I wanted to get in contact with you as (though I do not agree with you) I do feel you have the capacity to be fair
Please have a look into the encounter between Wood and I.
I feel he has wronged me and misrepresented me. He seemed hostile too. He also intimated that he may block me...that is his decision but I feel I have not done anything inappropriate and merely made a point that it would have been good practice for somebody to inform me of a response so I am aware of it
Fair
thanks...PS...you can delete this post or keep it up
I would have emailed you in privae if I knew how
Thanks
thanks
CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD?
What is the meaning of calling on the name of the Lord? Many assume that believing in Jesus and saying a form of a sinner's prayer constitutes, calling on the name of the Lord. The problem with that theory is none of the conversions under the New Covenant support that assumption. Not one time is anyone ever told to believe and say the sinner's prayer in order to be saved.
The apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost quoted the prophet Joel, Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (NKJV)
The apostle Peter preached the first gospel sermon under the New Covenant. Peter did not tell the 3000 converts to believe and say the sinner's prayer.
Peter preached the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. He preached Jesus as both Lord and Christ. When they heard this they asked Peter and the rest of the brethren what they should do?(Acts 2:22-37) Peter told them what to do. Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(NKJV)
How did the 3000 on the Day of Pentecost call on the name of the Lord and become saved?
1. They believed that Jesus was both Lord and Christ.
2. They believed that God raised Jesus from the grave.
3. They repented. Repentance is a change of heart. Repentance means to be converted so that God may forgive your sins. Repentance is to make the intellectual commitment to turn from sin and turn toward God. (Acts 3:19, Acts 2:38)
4. They were immersed in water (baptized) so that their sins could be forgiven.
How did the 3000 on the Day of Pentecost not call on the name of the Lord?
1. They did not say a sinner's prayer.
2. Not one person was asked to pray for forgiveness.
3. Not one single man was told to be baptized as a testimony of his faith.
4. No one was told that water baptism was a just an act of obedience.
5. No one was informed they were saved the very minute they believed.
6. Not one person was told that water baptism was not essential for the forgiveness of sins.
7. Not one person was told to be baptized so they could join a denominational church.
Jesus said he that believes and is baptized shall be saved. (Mark 16"16) Jesus did not say he who believes and says a sinner's prayer shall be saved.
You ARE INVITED TO READ MY BLOG POSTINGS--Steve Finnell
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home