"I am not sure what the statement in parenthesis is referring to but I don’t think I agree with it"
I was referring to your words vis-a-vis...
"My understanding of what you meant by an Absolute Entity would be the “All Knowing” kind. In this case thought as we use the process would not be an exact fit"
It seemed to me that this was the equivalent of denying that this Imagined Being had ideas. Most of us consider a necessary component of thought to be "ideas". Of course...you will suit yourself, as always.
"The argument is that absolute moral principles exist and are recognizable as darkness and day"
That is not an argument. It is a conclusion. You are asserting it primae facie without justification of any kind.
"I was not given this task nor does it seem necessary for the argument"
You asserted an Absolute Principle which requires judgment. Judgment requires the exercise of opinion. You have not demonstrated that the principles, ideas, opinions and judgments that we use in our subjective ignorance are the opinions of an Ultimate Being. Nor why YOUR opinion of Ultimate Opinion should be considered as inviolate.
"That makes sense but I wasn’t arguing for absolute principles of conduct but absolute moral ideas that may be used to guide conduct"
Huh? The "principle" IS the idea--not the action.
"This hatred is not an absolute moral principle."
How do you know?
"The moral principles that are fundamental to these cultures proscribe love, charity, forgiveness, tolerance, compassion, etc. but not hatred"
I presume this was a typo??
Anyway...ALL cultures have always venerated hatred and even cruelty against the proper enemy of their particular self interests. Millions of corpses attest to this fact.
Furthermore...all those "virtuous" qualities have normally been preached and practiced within the limits of tribal interests...as they are today. There is not one decade since written history began in which this moral bias may not be shown to exist. And that includes yesterday and today in every country of the world, and in every family.
"I would say that “to oppose injustice” is an absolute moral principle"
"Injustice" is a subjective opinion. Thus people oppose different things and embrace different things. That is why all Countries, all States, and all individuals have various opinions on abortion (for instance). What is "just" depends on the subjective judgment of individuals. Opposition to what one "believes" is injustice--LOL--takes place in the subjective and relative realm. <gg>
"The way you stated the question implied that such an entity would have to struggle for understanding."
No. That was an inference you made all on your own.
"I would view an “all knowing” entity as being capable of knowing at the least without effort."
Is creation not an effort? Is knowing not an effort? Does altering what was to what is not require change? Does change not require energy?
On what basis do you view an all-knowing entity as knowing without effort? This entity must do SOMETHING to do something...even if it merely squeezes Her eyes tight like in Star Trek. And if you have any opinion on these questions either for or against...can you justify them rather than simply assert them as Absolute?
"We currently have confidence that sacrificing infants is a bad idea"
It is a bad idea where it involves risk to the killers, perhaps. It is certainly an ugly idea for those whom believe in the honoring of human rights and freedoms as a practical survival tactic. I personally find it disgusting and abhorrent, but I am aware that it is done by those whom consider it a wonderful honour to some Absolute Deity that they have imagined.
"The principle I proposed was to have a “regard” for their well-being. It was not to “guarantee my attitude or behavior toward them will be good for them.”"
Such a principle would be ignorant and harmful. Addicts would be injecting their very best friends. We have moved beyond that, and have established individual rights and freedoms as a guide to how we are "permitted" to treat others. We have defined certain "objective" criteria in order to regulate the subjective natures of people and their interactions.
"I was arguing for the existence of ideals that we can all reference and individualize according to our circumstance."
Well Jewels??? We can all reference ideals, can't we? Everything we know tells us that these ideals have been developed culture to culture, country to country, century to century. Does it seem illogical to you that thinking beings will think? That rational beings will reason? That feeling beings will kill creatures from other species while formulating realistic ways of living in harmony with one another--at least 10% of the time?
You have no evidence that these contradictory ideals are not just what they appear to be--the fruits of thought applied from the subjective bias of all humans. You can make any claims you want, of course. But at least, if you supplied an argument, the millions or billions whom disagree with you could oppose your premises and not merely your assertions.
"A dilemma for the 500, Right? I think I missed your point."
Yes, I think you did. I was amusing myself with your expressed idea that "being a family means, in part, taking care of one another, and that this results in benefits to all concerned in the long run""! How subjective, relative, narrow, and selfish were your expressions of an intended example of Absolute Principle! All this while you fed your kids the dead flesh of creatures who wished to live and flourish fully as much as you did and whom held the same "Absolute" values in their biological imperative--LOL! Creatures who protect their young and who obviously suffer when their efforts fail...
"So, it is only a matter of having consideration and having that reflecting on your attitude and conduct. It does not guarantee outcomes"
Seems to be a civilized value in our culture. So what does it have to do with proving or suggesting a Deity??
"By everyone’s best interest, I was thinking only of everyone involved (the three of us). You are certainly capable of making that kind of judgment (rightly or wrongly) and acting on it"
Why would you limit "everyone" to three people. Marriage would affect thousands of people both born and unborn.
And of course I am capable of making wrong judgments. I think we all are. But the point is this: who determines whether it is right or wrong? The Catholic Church, my father, or YOU?? |
