Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Fair enough.

My main thrust is that something transcendental must exist that allows distinct minds to have a common understanding of what that immaterial thing is. That may be a form, or as Augustine describes it, an idea in the mind of God. There are also people like Russell who tried to reduce mathematics to logic. I find it interesting that he saw numbers as simply characteristics of plurality. The Trinity is both one and many. I could base plurality in God’s attributes. I don’t really know which way to go with it and I don’t accept or reject mathematical Platonism, but I do assert that something transcendental must exist to account for it.

How do you explain logic in your system? How can you account for it being universal? All you have done is attack the need for immaterial universals to exist.

How is it absurd that immaterial things exist? Is it only absurd because you don’t like that idea?

I don’t think you can in a worldview that rejects God. I have found it quite humorous that recently a number of pop scientists have argued that we are likely living in a simulation. In my worldview I can take a realist approach and ground it in God’s revelation and that he made us in his image. That doesn’t mean that our senses can never be mistaken, however.

Pain is the quintessential example? Have you heard of masochism? Are you telling masochists they are wrong?

My point is that you seem to be picking something arbitrary based on your subjective feelings.

So back to pain. We observe that it seems bad for 99 people. Then there is this one masochist who it seems good to. Can we then never conclude that causing pain to someone is bad because we have an outlier?

Let us consider a recluse who has attempted suicide and failed. Death, murder, and suicide all seem good to him. He’ll probably attempt again but he just hasn’t yet gotten around to it. Nobody will even notice he’s gone. Is it OK to murder him?
Also, in your system, death is just the cessation of life. How can it seem like anything to him? Or is it just the pain part that is wrong? What if we do it in a way that causes no pain?

But your justification is that you need it to prove something else. You don’t have a justification to say it is true in your system.

The problem with your assertion is that I am not a fideist. In fact, I believe that my presupposition, the revelation of God, actually has evidential justification in prophecy, in history, and the reduction to absurdity of alternate systems. When I contrast that with your system, I see you taking axioms you have no justification for because you see the faultiness of nihilism and you don’t want to go there.

Morality isn’t grounded simply on his commands but on his very nature. Why should one do good? Because good is good. That is a valid use of circular reasoning. Do you disagree with the statement “You ought to do good?” And don’t forget I am a Calvinist. I don’t believe non-Christians can do good so the argument of why you should do good is rather meaningless. Even in your attempts to do what you think is good you reject God and set your own ideas or system as your moral authority. You seem to want to pin me to ethical egoism. I reject ethical egoism. John 3:18 says ‘Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” So according to scripture, no amount of goodness a person thinks he can do results in salvation. The non-Christian is already condemned. It is based on faith. Ephesians 2:8 says ”For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” As a Christian I want to do good. I can’t help but desire to please God because I love God. I would say I have a duty to do good. After all, God is my creator and my savior. But a true Christian will have a regenerated nature and seek to do his will. I don’t see why you would find something like a duty to be an issue when you have sympathies for Kant’s system.

I agree. But you have no basis to make absolute statements. You can look, but you won’t find it if you refuse to be critical of your own starting points. Pragmatism is not justification to take any axiom you want since your worldview collapses without it. In my worldview I have an absolute standard for ethics, for uniformity of nature, and for logic.

Please hear me again. It is not my goal to win an argument or to tear apart your philosophical system. It is out of a genuine care and concern for you that I make the arguments that I am making. I am just a philosophical tinkerer and you are a true philosopher, but I believe my position has merit. I have been endeavoring to set forth an argument, but it takes some time to work up to. Please forgive me if any of this comes out too strong.

I think ontology is important. To say that something seems good or seems evil implies that goodness or evilness exists. Though moral judgments can be made prescriptively, you have used these terms descriptively through this conversation. If you claim it exists, it is not unreasonable to ask ontological questions. If someone tells me I ought not to murder and I ask why, he will tell me “because it is evil!” I don’t understand what evil or good can possibly be in a system that claims the following:

- Prescriptive statements are not expressions of sentiment
- Everything that exists is physical
- Things do not have moral properties
- Morality can be grounded objectively and universally

What do you mean by good and evil? What I understand good and evil to be seems irrational in your system. How do you objectively ground prescriptive statements? Do good and evil exist or not? To avoid the question tells me there is a contradiction you are avoiding.

I don’t see how your ethical system escapes subjectivism or how it has a basis to make absolute statements about morality. In your work, The Codex Quaerendae, you raise the question “but how can phenomenalism, inherently subjective, be made compatible with objectivism?” The answer you gave and the process you describe here seem insufficient. What makes a certain appetite seem good or bad? How does it not reduce to consensus? Why should we pay attention to flourishing and suffering? Is one better than the other? You even state “never positively affirming one specific model to be the absolute indisputably correct one, but continually and forever narrowing in on a smaller and smaller set of models that might be correct.” This system is not a reasonable basis to make objective claims about morality. At best, an adherent to your system could say “according to how the majority of people’s appetites seem, it is probably wrong to murder.” On top of all that it assumes uniformity of nature when your system can’t provide an absolute basis for that either. You have to accept it as an axiom to even begin to use your system.

In The Codex Quaerendae, you state the following: “But that does not mean that no justification can be offered, and that we are doomed forever to either complete skepticism or, ultimately, blind faith. It means only that any fundamental justification must be an extra-logical one — a justification based not on appeal to logic per se but on appeal to something else beyond logic — and I propose a pragmatic justification; that is, a justification appealing to practical concerns.”

I believe that a consistent materialist worldview does reduce to skepticism. You attempt to avoid that by appealing to pragmatism and you feel free to take axioms such as the uniformity of nature because “to do otherwise is simply to give up on even trying to answer questions about what is real, which in turn would guarantee that we will never find any answers.” And so you end up in what seems more like blind faith because you don’t want to be a skeptic.

There is another option. In my worldview, there is an absolute basis for morality. In my worldview, I can say absolutely that the future will be like the past because God “upholds the universe by the words of his power (Heb 1:3).” Consider also logic itself. How can it be accounted for in a materialistic worldview? It is immaterial and universal. In your system, it suffers the same ontological problems other universals face. In my worldview I have an absolute basis for logic. Scripture says that God cannot lie. This would be a contradiction of his nature. In John 1:1 it also refers to Christ as the Logos. This is the Greek word we derive the word logic from and I believe it is reference to Greek philosophy. It seems absurd to posit morality, uniformity of nature, and logic can somehow be accounted for in a materialistic system. These must be transcendental. You have to assume my worldview to make sense of yours. A materialistic system cannot satisfy the preconditions for intelligibility.

I apologize for the delayed response. Yesterday was really busy and this has taken me some time to think through and answer.

Yes, I do consider myself a Calvinist, so you need not attack this conception of free will.

Previously, you stated

These two statements are at odds. If the second statement you made is true then the first is false. When I gave you an answer to the second you went back to the first. Since the second still stands I will reiterate my point since you skipped it. God is just. Suffering and death are a penalty for sin. Is a judge just when he allows the murderer and rapist go free? There is none that is righteous. So to argue that a good God is unlikely to exist because unrighteous sinners suffer or die is to argue that God can not act according to his just character and still be just. The quantity of evil is simply irrelevant. Nobody is receiving injustice.

The Christian knows simply because God reveals things about himself. I do see logical arguments for his attributes from philosophy, but ultimately I go to scripture. That of course brings the question: how do I know Christianity is the correct religion?
Consider the following passage:

Now I think most people can read this passage and know who it is talking about. It's pretty specific.
- He is righteous (v11)
- He was rejected by men (v3)
- He was led to his slaughter (v7)
- He was killed despite his righteousness (v8-9)
- He was afflicted (4)
- He was pierced (v5)
- He was killed among the wicked (v9)
- Other people's sins were laid on him (v6)
- He intercedes for transgressors(v12)
- By knowledge of him, people are accounted righteous (v11)

There's a number of other things that could be pulled out of this text. I think this list is more than sufficient to make it clear who this text is concerning. It is about Jesus Christ. Now why would I use scripture to make a case for Christianity? This is a messianic passage from Isaiah. It was written 700 years before Christ. In 1947, the Great Isaiah Scroll was discovered as part of of the dead sea scrolls and is dated 1-4 centuries before Christ. I find that astounding. Many religions like to make claims of prophecies and they always end up either being extremely ambiguous or simply unverifiable as to whether it occurred before or after the event it is prophesying. This passage is certainly not ambiguous and the date is clearly preceding Christ's birth.

Another one I love, this time written a millennium before Christ, is Psalm 22. Christ says the very words of the first verse from the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”. Then in verse 8 it says “He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him.” Christ was mocked in this same way at the crucifixion. V14 he is poured out like water – referencing when the spear went into his side and water came out. V16 “they have pierced my hands and feet” a clear reference to the crucifixion. Even the dividing of his garments and casting of lots is recorded in v18. V17 “I can count all my bones.” The other's being crucified had their bones broken, but Christ was already dead so they pierced his side instead. So we have again another very specific passage written before Christ's birth. This time however, it was written by a completely different author: King David.

There are many messianic passages and they show the true unity of scripture. Even in Genesis, right after the fall God says to the serpent that the seed of the woman shall bruise his head. Now I know this isn't a clear reference outside of Christian doctrine, but I also want to you to see that 66 books written over the course of more than 1000 years have the same message. What religion can claim this?

Who is coming? God is coming. Where? Bethlehem
Isaiah 9:6 says that a child will be born and his name shall be Mighty God. Isaiah 7:14 says that he will be born of a virgin and they shall call his name Immanuel (God with us). Micah 5:2 indicates that the one whose origins are from old will be born in Bethlehem

When is he coming?
Daniel 9 says 69 weeks (a week is 7 years and is commonly known this way) from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and that he would be cut off and atone for iniquity before the temple would be destroyed (70AD). That date the decree went forth can be determined from Nehemiah 2. There is some disagreement over how to calculate the years, but the calculations always end up with Christ being cut off between 30-40 AD

Why is he coming?
Isaiah 53 above – For mans reconciliation with God. He was crushed for our iniquities

There are many other messianic prophecies as well.

No other religion has the consistency in text. Look at Islam, it has exegetical theory called abrogation since it can't remain consistent internally – something written by only one guy. Joseph smith also has troubles in this department, not to mention his failed prophecies and fake translation of the Book of Abraham from reformed hieroglyphics. No other religion is as verifiable historically. There are numerous references people and places and events through scripture. This alone is strong evidence for the writings of the new testament happening at the time it claims. The thousands of ancient manuscripts makes it the most well preserved ancient text of all time and closest to the time of it being written. If you reject the accuracy of the text you end up having to throw away all written history. Christ and almost all of the apostles were killed for the message. They had nothing earthly to gain from it. For centuries after Christ Christians were being martyred for their beliefs.

I don't even see the need to get into philosophical arguments against pantheism or polytheism. I don't see anything that even comes close to the messianic prophecies or historical record.

So back to your questions.

You ask how do I reconcile it with what people of other religions think. They are mutually exclusive. We can't both be right. Truth is absolute. Someone is wrong and its not a decision to make lightly.

You ask how is my decision not arbitrary. I have reasons to believe and I base them on objective facts. You are telling me there are multiple objective atheistic systems and one might be right. I'm not just deciding on which one sounds best to me or which one feels right. Nor am I simply deciding on something because I was raised that way. Thus far you haven't given a reason for an ethical system. I would like to hear a good objective basis for a specific ethical system according to your worldview.

I'm not trying to say that disagreement means that they are all are wrong. I'm saying that it is not possible for multiple systems to be objective. If there is an objective system then all differing systems must be false and therefore not objective. You said “most ethical systems employed by most philosophers, such as deontology and utilitarianism, are both non-theistic and objective.” Calling two differing systems objective makes no sense. Maybe they can be objective internally, but without an objective reason to choose it you are not left with an absolute basis for morality. It is just choosing according to a system. It doesn't make it the right system. You can't call something wrong in anything but relative terms. You need to make an assertion of which system and why it is objective to claim that you have an absolute basis for morality.

I am arguing for moral nihilism and it is intentional. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my argument so I hope the previous statements clarified it.

I understand that it is not, but once you depart from materialism your worldview starts to seem much more religious and unsubstantiated. Buddhism for instance, is often described as atheistic. Many atheists, as you noted, are materialists which is why I brought up materialism.

I appreciate the information. I love philosophy and you clearly are very familiar with these ideas. I have seen a number of these, but not all in one place. I am mostly concerned with your beliefs, however. And you even reject some of these in your descriptions.

So if you reject dualism can I deduce that you are a materialist? If all that exists is matter, where does morality come from? Is it matter? How do you account for it? You claim it is universal so it can't be only in my mind. You have rejected that things have moral properties. What is it?

The scientific method relies on the uniformity of nature. How do you know that the future will be like the past? Do you have an answer for Hume or Russel?

Can you clarify this? Perhaps with an example?

I'll have to chew on this a bit, but it sounds like a very philosophized version of “you can't succeed if you don't try.” I think it is a noble way to approach things, but some things are just not realistic. No matter how hard I concentrate, I am not going to be able to fly. You can't find something that is immaterial and universal in a materialistic worldview. It's a contradiction.

I do understand. The nihilist has to import his own conception of evil to make the argument. In my mind, it is not evil for God to allow the existence of a world in which evil will happen. So to argue that God is evil, is to use a different conception of evil. He can't argue against consistency without making moral judgments that I do not hold. So he is showing me that he does believe in evil and unintentionally destroys his own worldview. Nihilists are trying to be consistent in philosophy, but end up being inconsistent in their heart.

I will get back to you as soon as I can. It probably won't be until late tonight. I have to head off to work early today and this one requires a bit more time for a response than I gave myself.

I find your point regarding time quite interesting and it is new to me, I don't personally hold to the privation theory of evil, however.

New account. Original AC.