Zez wrote:
I can't respond directly because this response was too vague. Are you trying to say that I'm being contradictory for believing neutrality exists, because for neutrality to exist, a view of right and wrong must also exist? It's hard to tell what specifically you're referring to without any example or further explanation.
I'm implying neutrality, by definition, is contradictory to what must exist. Neutrality not only implies that right and wrong exists, but it implies they are absolute. Through this, neutrality becomes an unachievable viewpoint, very similar with the idea of "Utopia." It also becomes impossible, as if such limits are absolutes, there are no "outside views."
Again, what do you mean by "physical order"? If your concepts of right and wrong aren't 100%, how absolute are your absolutes? Absolutes are a complete whole, not a fraction of one.
I'm talking about the mind's capacity, as stated earlier. While I cannot achieve full knowledge of all right and wrong, I believe absolutes do exist. If they do not, then this entire discussion is neither right or wrong. This is where contradiction sets in for neutrality.
Take this statement:
"We cannot know truth."
This is self-refuting. The speaker is implying that his statement, is indeed, truth.
I will concur, nature itself is not a random series of occurrences. I do however, believe that human's actions are not being controlled, manipulated or influenced by an outside force greater than any other animal or plant that exists, i.e; humans. This is not to say that an outside force does not exist. On the contrary, I do believe one does in fact exist. However, I deny any involvement of that force with human's actions, and at the very least, a direct contact or persuasion.
This is known as "Deism." Or, more specifically, the belief we were created by a God, but has abandoned us until the return. This is not completely definable nor solid as a complete worldview. It will eventually lead to Nihilism, the belief that all is meaningless and well as the existence of a God is wrong. The next step is Naturalism, which develops as a love for nature and the general physical world (materialism). And finally, this will lead to Existentialism. This is the current worldview that society uses on a massive scale (along with the fully contradictory philosophy of "Postmodernism"). It insists that reality or truth is relative, absolutes are undefinable or either do not exist, and that emotions are the fuel of the human being.
Direct contact is something of extreme rarity with a mathematical probability so low, the mind cannot comprehend how many 0's are in it.
The Bible is known as a sacred and historical document due to the events that took place. It has been attacked by millions, but every argument that comes across the Bible (specifically, Jesus' resurrection) does not have any credible evidence to prove that something else indeed, happened beyond the Bible's documentation. It is also seen as the most credible religious document in the history of man, as it was written within the first generation of the events, therefore keeping within reach of the widely-accepted standard by scholars, who insist is takes approximately 2 generations for legend to develop.
As you said, truths are not is single sections. While the Old Testament is controversial and still up in the air on some areas of credibility, there are some things involving it that the New Testament confirms and restates. The NT is a much more literal and reliable document. It claims that God is still at work in humanity, but not directly as his son was. It tells us we are "separated, but not isolated." After all, if evil will one day be destroyed, would you rely on mere chance?