Yes, but we do understand that it's an absolute reference that is self-contained and closed. It doesn't refer to any other earlier authority.Onyx wrote:Yeah, I figure my question sounds just plain dumb to most. But it was Hogleg who implied we need a "basis" for thinking that we can determine common good. My obtuse point is that - whatever we say is the basis for our ideals, you can always ask again, "well, what is the basis for that?" The only answer that some theists will accept is "God".Rusty wrote:'Cause they're God. What are you after? This is an odd conversation with an Evangelical. What kind of answer would you buy?Onyx wrote:But what is the basis of God, His Word and Christ? Why do they get to define the common good?hogleg wrote:Whose empathy? Just look to history.Onyx wrote:I answered that question. The basis is empathy. We decide what is the common good. Sometimes it's clear, sometimes less so.hogleg wrote:"Based on the common good" begs the questions --- What's the basis of that? Got to get to the root. Just what is the root.UncleBob wrote:Personally, I suspect this would be easy pickins for an evolutionist or atheist: Morals are based on the common good. As people better understand what is best for people, these morals are fine tuned. Frankly, it happened and happens all the time (see Onyx's post as an example) it's just implicit rather than explict. Also, the "Old Guard" generally has to die off for the change to be complete.hogleg wrote:UncleBob wrote: [Christian]: Nope. Morals are given by God and you didn't address God.Really, Del? Really? That's a mighty broad brush you paint with to make such an ugly picture.Del wrote:That sort of anti-intellecual argument is rather unique to American Evangelicals.
A question for both of you. How about the Christian who would respond with --- "Morals are based upon something. So if you aren't sure what your morals are based upon or if your basis shifts, how can you be sure you can trust the base much less the ensuing morals? It's not only impostant to know what you believe, but why you believe it.?
I imagine they may actually chuckle at the irony (for them) at this last statement: "It's not only impostant to know what you believe, but why you believe it."
Then the question arises --- who decides what the common good is?
The Word of GOD and the Christ. It is there we find our judgment and our salvation.What's your basis?
Yes, but cosmologists do not understand the physics during the first 10^-10 seconds. The energy levels are well beyond known physics. They're pretty sure that there is new physics there. So it's highly speculative to say it's spontaneous. It might be but there have been other speculations too eg Brane collisions. So there are no answers that have confidence. In this it's a bit like probing for a precedent previous to God.Onyx wrote:It's very similar to the question of the first cause of creation. People ask me what initiated the Big Bang or the universe. Apparently, they don't accept that it can just happen withou a cause. And yet they don't require a cause for God's existence. If God can exist without a cause, why can't the universe with a potential for moral critters such as ourselves exist without a cause?
You can see this honestly acknowledged in Baumann's Lecture notes - Here in '09 and here in a '12 successor set.
In '09: "The history of the universe from 10^-10 seconds (1 TeV) to today is based on observational facts and tested physical theories like the Standard Model of particle physics, general relativity, and fluid dynamics, e.g. the fundamental laws of high energy physics are well-established up to the energies reached by current particle accelerators (1 TeV). Before 10^-10 seconds, the energy of the universe exceeds 1 TeV and we lose the comfort of direct experimental guidance. The physics of that era is therefore as speculative as it is fascinating."
In '12: "By measuring the anisotropies in the microwave background and the large-scale distribution of galaxies in the sky, we can infer the spectrum of the of the primordial perturbations laid down during inflation, and thus probe the underlying physics of this era. Over the next decade, the inflationary era - perhaps 10^-30 sec. after the big bang - will thus join nucleosynthesis (3 minutes) and recombination (380,000 years) as observational windows into the primordial universe. However, while the workings of recombination and nucleosynthesis depend on well-tested laws of atomic and nuclear physics, respectively, the `physics of inflation' remains speculative. The Standard Model of particle physics almost certainly does not contain the right type of fields and interactions to source an inflationary epoch. To describe inflation we therefore have to leave to comfort of the Standard Model and explore `new physics' possibly far above the TeV scale. Some of the boldest and most profound ideas in particle physics come into play at these scales."