Relativism and skepticism are logical suicide

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Morality does change with the times and cultures. Previously, even a one-piece bathing suit for women might be considered risque. Now we have seen reports of a case of a reader at a papal Mass with a lot less clothing. Previously the death penalty was justified, now it is inadmissable.

The fact that humans have different moral ideas doesn’t mean that there’s no objective moral law, just that humans who have moral ideas contrary to this objective moral law are getting it wrong. Also, the fact that the death penalty is now judged as inadmissible has nothing to do with death penalty in itself (at least in Catholic doctrine ), but with its application in the contemporary context.

Some truths we cannot ever know for sure. For example, what exactly was there before the Big Bang. Some will say nothing as it was the moment of Creation, others will say that it cannot be determined whether or not there was something that existed previously and if there was, it is difficult or impossible to know what it would be.

What was there before the Big Bang is empirically inobservable, but that doesn’t mean it is absolutely unknowable - this affirmation implies an empiricist bias. But we can know by philosophical arguments (that is, by pure logic ) that the universe must have a first cause. However, the logical possibility of an eternal universe can’t be ruled out, as Saint Thomas Aquinas himself admitted. That the universe had an absolute beginning in time is probably doomed to remain a dogma of faith - even thought some arguments for temporal finitism based on Big Bang cosmology have been formulated.

 

[Freddy]

AlNg:

Morality does change with the times and cultures. Previously, even a one-piece bathing suit for women might be considered risque. Now we have seen reports of a case of a reader at a papal Mass with a lot less clothing. Previously the death penalty was justified, now it is inadmissable.

The fact that humans have different moral ideas doesn’t mean that there’s no objective moral law, just that humans who have moral ideas contrary to this objective moral law are getting it wrong. Also, the fact that the death penalty is now judged as inadmissible has nothing to do with death penalty in itself (at least in Catholic doctrine ), but with its application in the contemporary context.

Some truths we cannot ever know for sure. For example, what exactly was there before the Big Bang. Some will say nothing as it was the moment of Creation, others will say that it cannot be determined whether or not there was something that existed previously and if there was, it is difficult or impossible to know what it would be.

What was there before the Big Bang is empirically inobservable, but that doesn’t mean it is absolutely unknowable - this affirmation implies an empiricist bias. But we can know by philosophical arguments (that is, by pure logic ) that the universe must have a first cause. However, the logical possibility of an eternal universe can’t be ruled out, as Saint Thomas Aquinas himself admitted. That the universe had an absolute beginning in time is probably doomed to remain a dogma of faith - even thought some arguments for temporal finitism based on Big Bang cosmology have been formulated.

When you say ‘begining in time’ it might be more accurate to say ‘begining in this time’. The universe may be cyclical.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

The universe may be cyclical.

These arguments also deal with cyclical models for the universe.

 

[AlNg]

The fact that humans have different moral ideas doesn’t mean that there’s no objective moral law

What does the objective moral law say about torture. Is torture morally right or morally wrong?

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Wrong. That’s also what the Church teaches. “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity” (CCC 2298). The fact that political and (unfortunately ) ecclesiastical authorities used torture in the past proves nothing. The Church has never declared at a magisterial level that torture is morally right, people just acted as if it was because that was the cultural background - from wich, thank God, we got out.

 

[AlNg]

The Church has never declared at a magisterial level that torture is morally right

Have you heard of the Inquisition and the fact that the infallible Pope Innocent IV approved the use of torture under certain conditions?

The fact that humans have different moral ideas doesn’t mean that there’s no objective moral law,

What is the objective moral law with reference to deliberately telling a falsehood. Is lying always objectively morally wrong or is the morality of lying relative to the circumstances?

 

[Dan123]

But we can know by philosophical arguments (that is, by pure logic ) that the universe must have a first cause.

But only to the degree we can be certain of our axioms. It may not be the case that rules that exist within our universe such as cause and effect apply to the creation of the universe itself. We only have the one universe to analyze and we weren’t around for its creation. That’s where proportioning ones belief to the evidence comes into play. IF the universe is finite and IF laws of cause and effect apply to the creation of universes, then it would stand to reason it had a first cause yes.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Have you heard of the Inquisition and the fact that the infallible Pope Innocent IV approved the use of torture under certain conditions?

Papal infallibility applies only to magisterial universal declarations in matters of faith and morals. The approval you are talking about was given in the context of a disciplinary norm, so infallibility doesn’t apply. Also, it was in a document specifically referred to inquisitors, so it wasn’t universal.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

It may not be the case that rules that exist within our universe such as cause and effect apply to the creation of the universe itself.

The principle of causality doesn’t come from physics. It comes from logic. It can be deduced from the principle of identity and the existence of contingent things - that is, things that in themselves have the possibility to exist, but wich existence isn’t absolutely necessary. Now, since a contingent thing can equally exist and not exist, it can’t have in itself the reason of its existence, so if it exists it has the reason of its existence in something else - wich is its cause. And this is true in every possible universe.

 

[Dan123]

And this is true in every possible universe.

Demonstrate the universe is contingent. Your logical structure is valid but your premises still need to comport with reality.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Demonstrate the universe is contingent. Your logical structure is valid but your premises still need to comport with reality.

Can the universe be different from what it is? If yes, the universe is contingent. But the burden of proof is on the one who claims that it can’t.

 

[Dan123]

Can the universe be different from what it is?

Maybe? Probably? Again I don’t know enough about how universes are created to know that. It feels like it should be sure, but that’s my human brain providing a human-centric view on it. Show me another universe that’s different than this one and we’ll be on more solid footing. Until then your deductive reasoning can’t be any more certain than the certainty of your premises.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Let’s look at it from another point of view.
Science is all about the study of phenomena. Every phenomenon is something new; therefore, it can’t be reduced to a previous phenomenon a priori, but only after observation. Now, every new observation can either verify or falsify a scientific law that is formulated in order to explain some phenomenon. Therefore, every scientific law is falsifiable. If something is falsifiable, it evidently can’t be absolutely necessary. If something isn’t absolutely necessary, it is contingent. Therefore, every scientific law is contingent. If scientific laws are contingent, the universe is contingent. Therefore, the universe is contingent.

 

[Dan123]

That our explanation of a phenomenon can be falsified does not mean the actual explanation becomes contingent. Scientific laws are simply repeated observations generalized into predictive tools. Trying to leap from that to proving the nature of the universe without doing actual work to study the universe isn’t a good formula to draw certainty from your explanations. As I said valid logical arguments are never more sound than their premises, you’re trying to do the reverse and prove a premise with logical reasoning that relies on the same premises.

Can the universe be different from what it is? If yes, the universe is contingent. But the burden of proof is on the one who claims that it can’t.

The burden of proof would be on anyone claiming to know the answer. You’d also need to clearly define ‘different’.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

The laws of physics are an explanation of how the universe works. If they are contingent, the universe doesn’t necessarily work in a single way. So it is contingent, it can be different from what it is. There’s no fallacy of composition.

 

[Hume]

Freddy:

If anyone here’s not a skeptic I’ve got a nice harbour bridge I can let you have pretty cheaply. I could even throw in the Opera House…

Again, checking facts is not philosophical skepticism, just critical thinking. So that’s a strawman.

With respect, I think you began the thread with a strawman.

I propose you practice the “iron man” in comparative philosophy. Instead of you offering a very simplified definition of a philosophy you’re already hostile toward (per the thread title), let someone or multiple someone’s who agree with the philosophy offer theirs.

Those are typically much harder to dismiss out of hand.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

That our explanation of a phenomenon can be falsified does not mean the actual explanation becomes contingent.

It does. The actual explanations needs also to be verified, wich implies the possibility of being falsified.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

I provided the actual definition of both later. One thing can’t have more than one actual definition. One can’t play games with words in order to make it appear he isn’t wrong.

 

[Dan123]

The laws of physics are an explanation of how the universe works. If they are contingent, the universe doesn’t necessarily work in a single way.

Or our explanation was wrong, or more likely incomplete. Newton’s laws of motion failed to explain certain planetary motion. That doesn’t mean the planets move by magic it just means our understanding was incomplete. It’s more complete now. It will likely grow yet more complete in the future. Whether we understand something doesn’t tell you if the thing itself is contingent.

 

[Hume]

Semantics is the first step in any debate.

And as differences are usually found among base accept-or-reject axioms, most never move beyond this point. I recall the debate between Peterson and that staunch atheist fellow everyone was excited about a few years ago. Never moved, really, beyond a debate over base terms in the hour or two they spoke.