The Problems With Ethical Relativism (12 Viewers)

[Dinsdale]

Well yes, but the problem is what that fourth dimension may be. Counting down is easier than counting up, which would be impossible.

A 4-dimensional space is a space in which 3-dimensional spaces, like our universe, are simply cross sections. We can't imagine how a 3-dimensional cross section looks like, because we're in it ourselves, but the 3d-to-2d analogy makes the concept understandable.

If there is a 4d space, so theoretically there should be 5d space too? And maybe infinite number of spaces then? If so this still would not explain any of gods properties, since one god would be higher then the other and so forth with increasing number of dimensions, while god as we are told have to be the highest thing there is? So for god to be he would have to be outside of the dimensional space then, no?

I explained that in the second paragraph of my post (added it a bit later, you might have missed it).

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Raz]

I explained that in the second paragraph of my post (added it a bit later, you might have missed it).

Just read it, and I agree with you. Basically we have a problem with gods definition here. If we go with the one that created our universe and can watch us, intervene with us without us knowing than, yeah, this could be a possible explanation of god.

But if we go with the definition of god as all powerful, the cause of everything and etc, than the 4d explanation wouldn't fit here. In fact any explanation wouldn't fit him. Since whatever the discoveries will be made, we will not be able to find this god, because he is supposed to be higher than anything. So no matter how far we will be or high on our knowledge, there will still be room for saying that that god is above that.

So I would agree with the first definition, but this isn't really god is it? This certainly wouldn't be god that so much religious people have "found" and fallen in love with. While the second is perfect for religion, and i honestly think that most religious people would not accept the first definition, and would say that a more powerful god, one like the second is at work here.

 

[Dinsdale]

Just read it, and I agree with you. Basically we have a problem with gods definition here. If we go with the one that created our universe and can watch us, intervene with us without us knowing than, yeah, this could be a possible explanation of god.

But if we go with the definition of god as all powerful, the cause of everything and etc, than the 4d explanation wouldn't fit here. In fact any explanation wouldn't fit him. Since whatever the discoveries will be made, we will not be able to find this god, because he is supposed to be higher than anything. So no matter how far we will be or high on our knowledge, there will still be room for saying that that god is above that.

So I would agree with the first definition, but this isn't really god is it? This certainly wouldn't be god that so much religious people have "found" and fallen in love with. While the second is perfect for religion, and i honestly think that most religious people would not accept the first definition, and would say that a more powerful god, one like the second is at work here.

Nope, I can't make the definition of god, as in a 'fundamental cause of everything', understandable. Only the 'god light'. Don't know how religious people feel about this interpretation.

 

[Raz]

I'm always open for suggestions like you just mentioned with 4d and 'god light'

Lets say that you are right and we go with my first definition and your "god light", that 4d dude is our universe cause and we call him god. I find it very interesting the fact that it has to be "good". If he is just some entity, why does his properties have to consist of endless love and etc, why not epic destruction or something in between?

Don't you think that if there were such an entity in 4d, then chances of its properties being only good are very slim? Or would we be just very lucky that 4d entities consist only of good, kind, caring qualities?

 

[Martin]

I'm always open for suggestions like you just mentioned with 4d and 'god light'

Lets say that you are right and we go with my first definition and your "god light", that 4d dude is our universe cause and we call him god. I find it very interesting the fact that it has to be "good". If he is just some entity, why does his properties have to consist of endless love and etc, why not epic destruction or something in between?

Don't you think that if there were such an entity in 4d, then chances of its properties being only good are very slim? Or would we be just very lucky that 4d entities consist only of good, kind, caring qualities?

You're missing something important. Our human morality comes from our social interactions, the need to exist together. God doesn't have anyone around him, so there's no reason for him to even have a morality.

 

[Raz]

But if what JR saying is true, than god has set moral guidelines for us to fallow. It is not what i think it is, I'm just curious know what other people think on this.

 

[Dinsdale]

I agree with Martin. Morality is a creation of man which naturally came to existence because of man's fundamental goal to maximize survival chances.

But still there are some more mysterious properties about man, that may or may not be indications of divine design. Like consciousness and a priori knowledge.

Anyone ever heard of the latter btw? People (abstracting mentally retarted ones) are born with this natural ability to understand language and math for instance. So this ability to understand language syntax and quantity are called a priori knowledge, because no one has ever taught us these things. They're like the boot system of a computer. It's just there from the beginning. A computer manufacturer implements the boot system on the hardware chip of a computer. So how did this knowledge get 'installed' in our brain?

 

[Seven]

You're missing something important. Our human morality comes from our social interactions, the need to exist together. God doesn't have anyone around him, so there's no reason for him to even have a morality.

God is not a logical answer for either the origin of the world or morality.

 

[Martin]

I agree with Martin. Morality is a creation of man which naturally came to existence because of man's fundamental goal to maximize survival chances.

But still there are some more mysterious properties about man, that may or may not be indications of divine design. Like consciousness and a priori knowledge.

Anyone ever heard of the latter btw? People (abstracting mentally retarted ones) are born with this natural ability to understand language and math for instance. So this ability to understand language syntax and quantity are called a priori knowledge, because no one has ever taught us these things. They're like the boot system of a computer. It's just there from the beginning. A computer manufacturer implements the boot system on the hardware chip of a computer. So how did this knowledge get 'installed' in our brain?

If morality is an evolutionary adaption, why wouldn't language be? Aren't both more or less equally important?

 

[Seven]

I agree with Martin. Morality is a creation of man which naturally came to existence because of man's fundamental goal to maximize survival chances.

But still there are some more mysterious properties about man, that may or may not be indications of divine design. Like consciousness and a priori knowledge.

Anyone ever heard of the latter btw? People (abstracting mentally retarted ones) are born with this natural ability to understand language and math for instance. So this ability to understand language syntax and quantity are called a priori knowledge, because no one has ever taught us these things. They're like the boot system of a computer. It's just there from the beginning. A computer manufacturer implements the boot system on the hardware chip of a computer. So how did this knowledge get 'installed' in our brain?

Language is not a priori knowledge.

And I know Aristotle.

 

[Dinsdale]

Not language itself, but isn't the concept of syntax? I'm not sure what qualifies as a priori knowledge, and what not. I just heard about it very briefly and thought it was weird.

 

[Dinsdale]

If morality is an evolutionary adaption, why wouldn't language be? Aren't both more or less equally important?

But morality is something society teaches us. A concept like quantity isn't teached, we just get it from the start.

 

[Martin]

But morality is something society teaches us. A concept like quantity isn't teached, we just get it from the start.

No, morality is partly inborn. Studies on little children have shown that they have moral reflexes.

 

[Dinsdale]

No, morality is partly inborn. Studies on little children have shown that they have moral reflexes.

Really? Never heard about that. Anyway, if that's true, you can consider basic morality a priori knowledge too.

 

[Raz]

Then its an evolutionary process which gives us priori knowledge?

 

[Dinsdale]

On second thought, isn't morality rather an instinct then?

 

[Martin]

Really? Never heard about that. Anyway, if that's true, you can consider basic morality a priori knowledge too.

Oh, absolutely.

In a sense this is a problem with evolution, because you can use it to explain everything. So I don't want to make bold claims that are on shaky ground. But yes I have heard about the inborn morality thing, don't recall anything similar on language though, maybe I missed something.

I'm not educated about this stuff, I know some of the conclusions but I don't know any of the science behind it.

 

[Dinsdale]

Oh, absolutely.

In a sense this is a problem with evolution, because you can use it to explain everything. So I don't want to make bold claims that are on shaky ground. But yes I have heard about the inborn morality thing, don't recall anything similar on language though, maybe I missed something.

I'm not educated about this stuff, I know some of the conclusions but I don't know any of the science behind it.

No, no, not language. Languages are teached by our environment. I mean language syntax as a general concept. How do we know what functions certain words have? How do we know how to learn a language? Where does this knowledge come from? Sounds mysterious to me.

I'm not an expert in linguistics, so you might wanna change 'language' into 'math', and 'syntax' into 'quantity'.

You can't install software on a computer without having a boot system, right?

 

[Seven]

On second thought, isn't morality rather an instinct then?

Yes. It's not knowledge, because knowledge implies choice. Morality on the other hand isn't always about choices. Sometimes you just feel bad.

 

[Martin]

You can't install software on a computer without having a boot system, right?

This is more my domain. You need an OS to run software, that's right. Unless you define "software" to include the OS, which of course technically it does. Well, you could also write your code to run on the bare metal, no OS necessary, but that's not very common.