Views that are expressed in absolutes or relativism are at odds with each other when looking at how the world should be viewed. If we propose there are absolutes, this means somethings cannot be changed by culture or time, concerning right and wrong. If we say there is no such thing as an absolute, then all things are possible, and anything thought of as relative can be changed due to any whim given some justification.
24 Aug 19
@kellyjay saidThere is only one absolute .
Views that are expressed in absolutes or relativism are at odds with each other when looking at how the world should be viewed. If we propose there are absolutes, this means somethings cannot be changed by culture or time, concerning right and wrong. If we say there is no such thing as an absolute, then all things are possible, and anything thought of as relative can be changed due to any whim given some justification.
25 Aug 19
@kellyjay saidIn terms of codes for governing personal interactions, their source is a combination of our human nature and our human environments.
Views that are expressed in absolutes or relativism are at odds with each other when looking at how the world should be viewed. If we propose there are absolutes, this means somethings cannot be changed by culture or time, concerning right and wrong. If we say there is no such thing as an absolute, then all things are possible, and anything thought of as relative can be changed due to any whim given some justification.
We can make objective statements about the laws and communal arrangements that are founded on those codes.
But the way an individual perceives and relates to those codes is the domain of subjectivity.
In matters such as these, it's your prerogative to make assertions about "objective truth" and "absolutes" and "The Truth", and to do so based on your personal conjecture about supernatural causality.
But such perceptions and opinions are nevertheless the product of your subjectivity, even if enormous numbers of people see things the same way as you do.
25 Aug 19
@bigdoggproblem saidThe difference between physics and the rest for there to be a distinction is?
I think the laws of physics are absolute.
The rest is subjective.
25 Aug 19
@bigdoggproblem saidDo you think a 'creator' could violate the laws of physics?
I think the laws of physics are absolute.
The rest is subjective.
25 Aug 19
@kellyjay saidIf, by "the rest", you mean the human condition, our communal living, and the unique and individual moral compass that every human has, then it is our capacity for abstract and metaphysical action and reaction, i.e relationships ~ and the unique nature-nurture combinations that differentiate between your human spirit and mine and everyone else's ~ that put 'how we govern our natures and our communal lives' beyond the entirely empirical realm of "physics".
The difference between physics and the rest for there to be a distinction is?
25 Aug 19
1 edit
@kellyjay saidWhat single set of "laws of physics" type notions and personal opinions/conjecture do you want to project onto and impose on ALL of the following: [1] a Muslim farm labourer living in a village in East Java, [2] a Hindu international cricketer, [3] a Buddhist monk in a Thai mountain retreat, [4] a Chinese atheist senior high school teacher living in the sprawling suburbs of Guangzhou, [5] a Jewish homosexual working for Mossad... and so on?
The difference between physics and the rest for there to be a distinction is?
25 Aug 19
@bigdoggproblem saidYou are incorrect.
No.
The "Creator" himself is bound to play by those laws.
Any other questions?