₦airaland Forum

Athiests Go to the ant thou sluggard

God does not begin; God is eternal

Bump!

^^^ Someone else must have hacked into your account.
For the man who says we can not know anything, authoritativey asserts that unicorns do not exist.

Well, at least your omniscience is obvious.

Good day.

PastorAIO:
It should not be difficult therefore to contrast it with something undesigned whether or not such a thing exists or not?

There is no such thing as a thing that does not exist.
Get it now? ? ?

U may remember the thread "Pastor AIO come teach us the truth". . . I cant shout. I have tried enough to ask you to be clear. Even a wrong view is better than no view. What you evince, is no view. That is the summary of you. Enjoy it.

PastorAIO:
So there is nothing that is undesigned. Haven't I been here before… hmmm… Oh yes! 'Everything is Natural, everything that exists is Nature, so therefore there is no such thing as the supernatural.'

This desperately dumbass way of thinking only tells me that these people use words and concepts that are ill defined. In other words they don't know what they are talking about.

Deepsight, that your last comment that I have highlighted for you is the bane of your reasoning capabilities. You, sir, do too much understanding what someone is trying to say and hardly any understanding of what the person is actually saying. You've done this to me too many times to mention and it makes it hard to discuss with you in a manner that isn't annoying.

A word ought to refer to something with limits, i.e. something that is defined. The only word that refers to everything is 'everything' and even that is contrasted by definition from 'nothing' and 'somethings'. If I ask you what 'everything' means I'm sure you'll have no difficulty explaining it. You will show how it defined in contrast to Nothing and in contrast to 'somethings'.

Design and undesigned too must be definable in contrast to each other and then when we observe an event we can use the definitions to to ascertain whether the event was designed or not.
You don't even have to produced examples of undesigned phenomena. All you need is to make a hypothetical example of an undesigned thing if ever it should exist.

Sorry I have no clue what this senseless ramble is about.
In the day that you define your perspectives, instead of chasing your tail, we might have a conversation.

OP - Very Interesting indeed!

Will revert.

PastorAIO:
I wouldn't expect anything more serious, or less serious (if possible) than your initial post which that is a response to.



Isn't that the implication of having an ultimate Authority. An ultimate authority cannot be thwarted. As they say about the boss in some companies, 'The buck stops here'.

Oga pata pata bears the full weight of the responsibilities. Especially if the oga pata pata is said to be omnipotent.

If God is all powerful then nothing happens that is not sanctioned by him.

The existence of an ultimate authority does not obviate free agency or the responsibilities every free agent carries. The ultimate authority has caused natural principles to exist which adamantly cause effect to follow trigger. You know and understand this very well, but as usual you choose to make futilitee merry go round statements. The fact is that if your treatise were consistent, no one should either be punished or rewarded for any actions however noble or repugnant , indeed such concepts as nobility or repugnance should not exist.

wiegraf:
you can't even get your facts right: there's only one monster.

Happily, i never fancied you as one with the gift of the garb.

let go of the hate, my good xtian, and enjoy the pasta

Being serious minded has no hate, just as you know very well I am no Christian. I do like PASTA THOUGH!!!!

CoolUsername:
Eh. No. You don't see these guys strapping bombs to themselves, or covering evidence of child molestation. They're just a fun-loving bunch. They're also a beacon for the maxim of equality in our world today you can't privilege one religion over another.

You mean a beacon of stupidity and thoughtlessness.

sonOfLucifer:
Aren't we all sick?

Good point. However the sickness of creating a "church" of Flying spaghetti monsters for the purpose of jocularly mocking a church of an alleged human sacrifice for the atonement of sins - and incorporating same, does transcend all levels of sickness.

^^^ Its not a religion. It's a sick joke, just as sick as the OP.

PastorAIO:
ee ee oo!! Na wa for dis ya indignation.

Where did Idi Amin or Abacha or Mobutu claim that Might is Right? I'm not aware of that.

You are funny. This sort of post is exatly why I have called you a futilist for a long time.
Do you really expect a serious response to this sort of post?

You often remind me of a dog chasing its tail.

If not by the command of Heaven, how can anyone slay or conquer out of his own strength?
Kuyuk Khan to the Pope.

Then no one in the world is or has ever been responsible for anything that they ever said or did.

That's all.
I lack the strength to go further.
That's my "sporting" attempt.

PastorAIO:
This is very unsporting of you to claim to disagree yet fail to explain why you disagree.

Not to mention your promises to 'revert to more in the evening' regarding countering my earlier post.

Ah well. You force my hand sire. Very well. As you insist, I will have a "sporting" go at it sire.

^^^ Well said, and elegantly put, AIO - i cannot dispute it further. I understand your point of view - However I still disagree with your point of view.
Stay blessed @ All.

Kay17:
We have the Athenians saying that under natural law:



Which sums up 'might is right' as against Rousseau and Aquinas ideas of natural law. The difference at least in this case, is too substantial to ignore.

That was a statement of what happens in conflict and not quite a statement of articulation of natural as pertains to human morals. You would not pick out what goes on in situations of war as a benchmark for identifying morality as per human morality either.

Kay17:
Natural law meant different things to serious philosophers. From Cicero to Aquinas to Nietzsche to Kant to Herbert Spencer to Rousseau: all had Natural law invoked with diverse meanings. In fact the Athenians had this to say about their own natural law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_Dialogue

Positivists believed any law or moral was valid as long as it was normative and sanctions were effective to enforce it. These were the minimum requirement for laws and morals.

I have had a look at the link in yours above. I am at a loss as to how it affects the discussion here. What on earth are you on about? ? ? ?

Kay17:
It is impossible to deny the diversity of moralities across time and space; and once that is accepted, it is difficult to still claim morality is objective as a fact and universal.

As explained in mine above, it is Positive Law that changes and positive laws have little to nothing to do with morals as we speak of them.
The underlying principle of Natural law remains the same different descriptions or wordings regardless.

PastorAIO:
Isn't it?!

If you think that might is right, I am probably wasting my time discussing with you. You had best discuss this matter with persons who share that view, such as Idi Amin, Abacha, Hitler, Stalin, Charles Taylor, Mobutu Seseseko and other such persons who are clearly of the same ignoble mindset.

PastorAIO:
Courts and prisons are not universal.

This is irrelevant. Their equivalents are universal in different forms. Systems for adjudicating matters and meting out punishment basically. These are universal. Why have you become a surface thinker? What happened to you?

Well can you tell me how you determine 'objective' Morality other than making an agglomeration of lots of different subjective opinions.

See my post above. I will still revert with more in the evening.

^^^ Please note the Edits. Added 3 short paragraphs.

PastorAIO:
I just started learning about Natural Law recently thanks to Ubenedictus. I haven't gotten into it too deeply yet but as yet I view it with a bit of suspicion. Perhaps you could drop your 2kobo in this thread here:

https://www.nairaland.com/2902194/challenge-roman-catholic-doctrine

I have had a look at the thread and there is not too much there to invite the necessary commentary. I think it's better I make my few and humble comments here.

There is only one thing I would like to take from the comments of Ubenidictus, and that is the statement that natural law is written in the hearts of men. However I take this statement with a bit of caution (not because I doubt it) but because I know that you hysterical lot may heckle at it and pick puerile flaws with it. So no matter.

What is more cardinal for me to say - (and Plaetton please note this as per your posts on laws changing according to cultural values) - is that only Positive Laws change according to cultural values. Natural Law never changes - It remains what it is - adamantine and permanent just as they proceed from the natural and ineluctable nature of the Creating Mind itself - which creating mind (or Expanding mind is what we call God) - The same ultimate element that Plaetton refers to simply as energy whilst denying its consciousness - Natural Law is what it is through all times and ages.

In this, please leave the Abrahamic God aside - it is fraught with too many contradictions. I am speaking logic and basic human principle here. And what I am speaking has been enunciated thoroughly by great minds in philosophy throughout the ages. I will try to post some historical commentary in this regard later.

This is actually a professional area of learning - just as medicine, architecture, or any of the physical, biological or chemical sciences. It is not mere talk. It is criminal jurisprudence - a cardinal course for any lawyer to take whilst at university. With Criminal Jurisprudence, one has to understand the philosophy of the law - that is to say - the cardinal and primary underpinning notions that form the law.

And in this regard I have said to you that there is natural law and positive law.

Natural Law: - I relate to Mala in Se.

The definition:

:Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature and universally cognizable through human reason. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, being determined by nature, is universal.[1]

In Western culture, the philosophical conception of natural law first appears among ancient Greek thinkers.[2] Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct. Common law is not based on inherent rights, but is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally recognized by virtue of already having judicial recognition or articulation.[3] Natural law is often contrasted with the human-made laws (positive law) of a given political community, society, or state.[4] In legal theory, the interpretation of a human-made law requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says, but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself. Some jurists and scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale),[5] while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Positive Law: - I relate Positive Law to Mala Prohibita.

:Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited) is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,[1] as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.[2]

Conduct that is so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it is illegal under English common law is usually regarded as malum in se. An offense that is malum prohibitum may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum

Positive laws (Latin: ius positum) are human-made laws that oblige or specify an action. It also describes the establishment of specific rights for an individual or group. Etymologically, the name derives from the verb to posit.

The concept of positive law is distinct from "natural law", which comprises inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature or reason."[1] Positive law is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) and at a certain place, consisting of statutory law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as "law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society."[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law

Gentlemen, you should read thoroughly the fundamental underpinnings of these concepts. And please calmly come to understand exactly how they apply directly to the conversation on moral objectivity and moral subjectivity.

What is inherent is inherent in the human nature. That is what is referred to as natural. Therefrom proceeds that which is natural law and thus that which is objective and universal and timeless. That is what I argue for. However that which human dictates prescribe as per different cultures and different circumstances as societal regulations are that which proceed as Positive Law. These are not objective and these vary. These have little or nothing to do with morals. These will only form societal norms such as not parking your car in the wrong place. These have nothing to do with timeless and Universal morals which I argue for. Positive Laws have little or no bearing on morals.

It is this fundamental and perhaps tricky distinction that appears to have confused our conversation on this issue so much. What you gentlemen are referring to as cultural values that vary and evolve over time from place to place and from time to time - are not morals at all. They are simply norms and regulations of the ilk of Positive Laws - something like acquiring a Passport or Visa before travelling to a foreign country or having a work permit, or voting with an accreditation etc would all fall in that rank.

In concluding for now, please note at the very least that these are not things that Deep Sight has propounded. These are age long thoughts and conclusions by historical persons devoted to the subject which have formed our general thinking of today.

Only a mad person would conclude that anything that he personally thinks is right is therefore right. This is the madness that you gentlemen are displaying when you engage in this f.oolish talk about morality being subjective.

Relativity is a different subject altogether as it relates to the circumstance more than the person.

^^^ Economic Violence. The sort still going on in Nigeria today. It was a great book.

PastorAIO:
Dude, you're the one that brought temperature in as an analogy. You said everybody will feel the same temperature. I denied it and now you say my rebuttal detracts nothing.

Your analogy adds nothing to you point is what you should be saying.

Perhaps it was a bad example as you have shown. In fact, it was a poor example. I retract it with apologies.
It wasn't carefully thought out.

All these measurements and evaluations that I've mentioned are all relative. Then I moved on to morality and demonstrated that Morality too is similarly relative to the observer.

It is not, else there should be no such thing in existence as a court or a prison at all.

Dude, it's much easier to shut me up than that. All you have to do is produce the machine that we use to objectively measure morality. Since it is done in every society that ever existed (according to you), it should not be too difficult. What is the machine that they use to objectively measure morality in Lagos Island. Or your village, if you want to make it really personal.

I can't take this seriously.

Let me patiently explain it's relevance to you. You claim to have a machine, or a gadget with which to objectively measure morality. Although you are yet to produce the machine I will take you word for it for now. Me, I say such a machine does not exist and the only way you can gauge the morality of an action is by engaging an interlocutor. But all that is done then is find an agglomeration of subjective viewpoints and then you brush it a little and dust it a little and then claim it is an objective viewpoint.

That will not work for me.

Nor this.

^^^ To dwell very briefly again on the point about Murder. Merely killing another human being is not the definition of murder. With murder, there would have to be what is called the mens rea and the actus reus.

If a person kills in self defense, or in a case of reasonable provocation (where there has not been time for the passion to cool), or in a state of insanity, none of these things qualify as murder. There are very fine lines of thought that lead to these conclusions in criminal jurisprudence, and yes, criminal jurisprudence has a most direct bearing on the issue of moral relativity and the issue of moral objectivity or subjectivity.

I would advise you to acquaint yourself with these lines of thought if you are not already. I presume you are.
However it befuddles me that if you are then you should have long understood where I am coming from.

PastorAIO:
Your words not mine. It remains a possibility.

You rascal. Abami Eda.

My opinion on the subject is that Morality evolves over time, and it is relative. What is good in one instance is not necessarily good in another instance and vice versa.

Okay. I understand that point of view and to be honest it's fair enough.
What I would like you to understand are mala in se and mala prohibita.

Your friend the lunatic Wiegraf says that no such thing as mala in se exists.
What are your thoughts on the distinction?

Are you familiar with the jurisprudence of natural law and positive law?

I was always under the impression that you were arguing for an objectively determined Moral system that was absolute and fixed.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Nothing is absolute or fixed and it's somewhat irritating that you insinuate this into my arguments.
However there is natural law as distinct from positive law.

And the objective morality I refer to proceeds from natural law.

Most of criminal law is derived from natural law.
The distinctions between felonies and misdemeanors also relies on the distinction between natural and positive law.

If you look carefully at the OP in the thread that first brought this issue up (The evolution of morality, by Mr. Troll) - you would find that the presuppositions contained therein would render the existence of moral values or any ethics whatsoever as we know them, dead on arrival. It would be proper, positively moral and of good ethics to do anything whatsoever to advance one's personal interests regardless if such would include murder, theft, r.ape - you just name it.

Might would be right.

There is a huge body of learning that advises us that this is not the case: that might is not right: and that there exist such things as proper ethics and honour. I will elaborate on this perhaps when I have more time late in the evening.

Good lord!! I couldn't possibly imagine any of your imaginings. My brain cells would explode if I even thought to attempt.

That's a given.

One can't be too obvious these days. The way people get misconstrued is quite alarming. You wouldn't want that to happen to me, dear chap, would you?

People who speak devoid futility and entanglement rarely get misconstrued.

PastorAIO:
I'm fine thank you. I return the salutations. (albeit with a slight bit of trepidation).

Why?

I do not do as you do. You are the one to be feared.

I noticed that there is some distance between where I'm coming and where Plaetton and others are coming from with the relativity of morality thing

There is indeed. However you are not really clear on the subject. At least I can't decipher what exactly you are saying, perhaps I am just rather thick.

Funny thing is… I believe I already understand you on this morality issue

I strongly doubt it.

Your tendency to throw petulant tantrums do not help if you want to convince me of anything.

Go look in the mirror Ol' boy.
Besides do not imagine I imagine it possible to convince you of anything. Nor am I interested in so doing.

Perhaps I should take a risk and try to explain relativity to you (at least as I understand it).

Relativity is the position that we will observe different values for an event depending on our perspective.

There are various kinds of values for various kinds of attributes.

There are physical values like 6 feet or 5 feet for the physical attribute of Height.

There are physical values like 1 hour or 20 minutes for the physical attribute we call time.

There are Moral values like Good, better, or evil for Ethical attributes. These are not measured into precise units like physical attributes.

The fact that all over the world at various points in history moral values are variable demonstrates that Moral values are relative. Ie. An event is assigned a different moral value by different people observing it from different perspectives.
From our perspective today, we consider rape to be a vile nasty evil thing. However it is evident that the writers of the Old testament did not think so.

Now, this issue of relativity is different from the issue of Subjectivity or Objectivity. These often get mixed up and that could be where a lot of problems lie for people trying to understand my position.

Let us look at a physical attribute such as Time. Now Einstein has proven to the world that Time is relative. Time is relative to the speed at which the observer is moving. Of course we do not see that because we all pretty much move at the same speed. Even the guy in a fast car and the guy walking on the street are not going to notice any significant difference in the measurement of time.

However for an observer approaching the speed of light Time will slow down considerably. I can't go into details plus I believe you are already familiar with the work of Einstein.

My point is that how you perceive Time depends on the locality (a speed range being a locality) you perceive it from. People who share a locality will measure these attributes to be the same. People in different localities will measure Time differently. These are OBJECTIVE facts.

Relativity is an objective fact.

Nothing wrong with the above. It's obvious, hardly needs to be mentioned.

Someone like you that argues for a fixed Sense of Morality for all peoples throughout all ages is like someone that argues that Time is always measured the same regardless of the speed of the observer even though observers moving at various speeds have recorded their observations and we can all see the difference.[quote]No. Not at all.

Besides there is a difference between holding to moral objectivity and arguing for a "fixed sense of morality for all peoples throughout all ages" - I really don't know where you whipped that out from. Indeed your saying so just shows me what I suspected already: namely that you do not understand my point of view at all.

To drum it into a single line I would say that what is morally right or wrong cannot and should not depend solely on the feeling or view point of the individual moral agent. If that were the case, then there should be no conception of morality or immorality at all. There could only be deeds in an amoral world.

[quote]Let me return to the temperature example. (though I admit it is probably not a good example).
You argue that someone touching a 100 degree celsius object will feel the same temperature. that is not true. A simple experiment.

Make three buckets of water. One hot, one room temperature, and the third one cold. Put one hand in the hot bucket and the other in the cold bucket for 3 minutes. Then remove them and put them both in the room temperature bucket. Then tell me if the hand that was once in the hot bucket doesn't find the medium bucket colder than the hand that was in the cold bucket. They sense temperature differently depending on where they are coming from.

Furthermore Temperature is relative to pressure. A volume of gas with a fixed amount of heat energy will have one temperature in a high pressure container and a different temperature in a lower pressure container.

Fair enough, but detracts nothing with respect to the discussion on moral values.

However moral attributes cannot be measured by any objective barometer. We depend on our subjective sense of morality.

This is false. No society has ever existed on the above principle.
In fact, it is impossible for any society so to do.

So the only way one can argue these issues is to demand your interlocutor to give a moral appraisal of a situation (such as rape).

However, as with the case with Time where everyone on this planet is pretty much moving within a common range of speed, we are discussing with ourselves and we all belong more or less to a common cultural milieu. We have all been brought up to believe that Rape is evil (I hope).

To truly test this though we have to go to a different set of people from a different cultural context at a different time in history. And what do we find. We find that not only do they rape wantonly, but there is no hint of shame in the actions. There is even no sense that the feelings of the woman matter when justice is brought to bear on the matter of rape.

This is irrelevant.

thehomer:
I still don't understand what you mean.

In spite of the PHD? You are funny.

thehomer:
Why not both? By the way, why do you refer to me as Dr.?

Obviously you have a PHD in existential issues. That's why.

thehomer:
The length of my posts depend on what I'm responding to.

Ah, Dr. Homer, Something has infected you. Its either a woman or alcohol.

thehomer:
Check this guy out. You decided to start a party and chose not to invite me, why? Tired of getting your ass whooped?

Look this article is all fun and games but also just bullshit.

Saying God isn't subject to his own laws is just a waste of time. God using his laws permits all things so saying he isn't bound by his laws is pointless since all is permissible using his laws.

My own question would be, what is your God's character? Is he good or evil? Please give your real answer to this question. Then we can move on based on your response.

You seem to have changed. You write rather long posts these days. I seem to remember you as a one liner man.