musKeeto:
Thanks..Back to the original quote


Would it be right then to say that God came from 'nothing'? I ask this cause in database management systems, 'null/nothing' is still taken as a value. Nothing, in dbms, doesn't mean 'not-existent' but 'without value'...

If this is the case, then would it be right to say the God is just the big bang dressed up as a super hero? Do you think the big bang theory and God are compatible?

Forgive whatever ignorance this question may expose..

As I have always said, God by definition did not begin to exist. God is eternal. The moment you begin to suggest that God 'came from', you have immediately missed the point.

Kay 17:

Your analogy doesn't relate to my argument. I'm saying the structural complexity is necessitated by the physical laws which determine the Universe, however to conclude God the "designer" created it, will mean these physical laws are as self existent as God himself THAT his creations must conform to them.

Now if you say God created these laws, then I have to ask why its necessary for him to do so, if not we wouldn't be able identify his handiwork.

Go back to the analogy of a video game I gave you earlier. Your point of view is from within the universe, for you, the physical laws that you observe describe the universe.

To legitimately make the claim that the physical laws determine the universe you would have to be outside the universe and have samples of other ways that the universe could have turned out and why.

Notice how I have used the words describe and determine. If you need, please go back to my video game analogy so as to understand what I am passing across.

By the way would you be so nice as to mention a few specific physical laws that you have in mind maybe one or two. It may help us get somewhere.

@Anony

To legitimately make the claim that the physical laws determine the universe you would have to be outside the universe and have samples of other ways that the universe could have turned out and why.

No an outsider observation isn't needed. We study physics sufficiently from within the Universe. We observe gravity and law of motion without being outside the universe.

Go back to the analogy of a video game I gave you earlier. Your point of view is from within the universe, for you, the physical laws that you observe describe the universe.

Your video game analogy touches on a platform upon which the game is built (ie PlayStation 3) which determine the game. Therefore a cartridge console can't play a ps3 cd.

Mr_Anony:

Breaks apart here, considering that the argument is for a basis for morality, an inconsistent frequently 'misfiring' nature cannot possibly serve as a basis for morality. The point is that nature is - as Richard Dawkins put it - "the blind watchman". It has no will and hence no measure of good and evil.

The paragraph did not portray my second point clearly. Misfiring does happen, and while it might not be a logical reason, it nontheless is a side effect of empathy, a welcome one in many conditions. And you're again ignoring that we are conscious and intelligent, we'll get to that. First

You are still being shortsighted. This is pattern, repeating. I suppose like a fractal. Species are inter dependent as well, just like tribes, packs etc. All life is. It's not just your tribal mates you need to stay alive, you need your food to stay alive as well (at least, you need to make sure it's breeding). The whole system is one built around cooperation, even if you're eating your collaborator. Also note, the more biodiversity there is in a population, the greater the chance that life in general will succeed. The better ultimately the chances that you will survive, as you're life as well.

From plants needing insects for cross-pollination for instance, the insects have to be alive. You now start the process of fauna gathering the suns energy, getting eaten by herbivores, herbivores take a $hit and feed bacteria, bacteria get eaten, their eaters get eaten until you get to the insects getting some of that energy. Voila, insects now have energy for cross pollination.

This is not the best example because in the case of insects and plants they usually have a direct relationship, insect goes in for the nectar, plant gives it pollen and then insect moves on to the next plant. But there are many cases where there is no direct contact between parties, like say spreading seeds. You should get the point anyway, biodiversity is necessary for life, especially long term.

That is why I mention how we are moving towards becoming the protectors of all life. Nature moves in that direction, unwittingly of course. But just like we've used our conscious intelligence to build cars and planes to aid our feet, we're building better moral codes. Caste systems, packs, tribes we've evolved to out fairly complex system*, simultaneously enhancing our already inbuilt emphasis on empathy. We're also coming up with the technology to aid our goals; preserve life, and by extension preserving our selves. Again, sacrifices are necessary, if your species falls victim, it's your luck.

Mr_Anony:
This is all well and good but I hope you notice that it seems you are saying on the one hand that our genes want us to survive and will lead us towards selfish self-preservation and reciprocity (and I use the word reciprocity because kindness done on the basis of expecting recompense even in the case of a reward in the form of a more co-operative society is not altruism).
On the other hand, our brains (which by the way are a product of our evolving genes) enable us to make the choice to truly sacrifice ourselves without expecting a reward for ourselves or close relatives but other species and completely unrelated humans, because we have empathy (true altruism)

This is not what I am saying, maybe the bit above will help you understand.

Mr_Anony:
These two positions show a conflict of purpose for the genes and makes my case stronger which is that the genes (evolution) have no will other than survival and hence cannot possibly be a basis for morality in any way. More so because we assign more moral value to consciously choosing the route of self-sacrifice over self-preservation.

We even regard kindness to strangers and unrelated people as having more moral value than kindness to close relatives. Once again this contradicts the selfish gene that is more interested in replicating itself and enhancing related genes as opposed to unrelated ones.

Again, above.


I will also add again that even if you were going down this path, you ignore conscious intelligence. I would assume this same quality would have been the one that would have given 'god' a purpose, no?

Where's this god that's supposed to give us a purpose anyhow? We make our purposes, our genes definitely aid in shaping them as well.





*we still have serfs in 9ja though, suffering and smiling

Kay 17: @Anony
No an outsider observation isn't needed. We study physics sufficiently from within the Universe. We observe gravity and law of motion without being outside the universe.

Actually, outsider observation is very much needed for your argument to stand. You are within. The laws you observe only describe what you are seeing inside and based on those laws you can determine outcomes for things within the universe. If anything is happening to the universe on the outside, you cannot know by observing from within because you have absolutely no idea what laws - if there are any - determine the universe from the outside.

Your video game analogy touches on a platform upon which the game is built (ie PlayStation 3) which determine the game. Therefore a cartridge console can't play a ps3 cd.

Good but remember that you are a character within the game you cannot know if you are on an Xbox or on a Playstation. All you know is your game universe.
For instance, assuming that you are a character in a 2d game. You would have absolutely no idea that there is such a thing as a 3d reality. 2d in this instance does not determine the game it only describes it. Do you get my point now?

wiegraf:

The paragraph did not portray my second point clearly. Misfiring does happen, and while it might not be a logical reason, it nontheless is a side effect of empathy, a welcome one in many conditions. And you're again ignoring that we are conscious and intelligent, we'll get to that. First

You are still being shortsighted. This is pattern, repeating. I suppose like a fractal. Species are inter dependent as well, just like tribes, packs etc. All life is. It's not just your tribal mates you need to stay alive, you need your food to stay alive as well (at least, you need to make sure it's breeding). The whole system is one built around cooperation, even if you're eating your collaborator. Also note, the more biodiversity there is in a population, the greater the chance that life in general will succeed. The better ultimately the chances that you will survive, as you're life as well.

From plants needing insects for cross-pollination for instance, the insects have to be alive. You now start the process of fauna gathering the suns energy, getting eaten by herbivores, herbivores take a $hit and feed bacteria, bacteria get eaten, their eaters get eaten until you get to the insects getting some of that energy. Voila, insects now have energy for cross pollination.

This is not the best example because in the case of insects and plants they usually have a direct relationship, insect goes in for the nectar, plant gives it pollen and then insect moves on to the next plant. But there are many cases where there is no direct contact between parties, like say spreading seeds. You should get the point anyway, biodiversity is necessary for life, especially long term.

That is why I mention how we are moving towards becoming the protectors of all life. Nature moves in that direction, unwittingly of course. But just like we've used our conscious intelligence to build cars and planes to aid our feet, we're building better moral codes. Caste systems, packs, tribes we've evolved to out fairly complex system*, simultaneously enhancing our already inbuilt emphasis on empathy. We're also coming up with the technology to aid our goals; preserve life, and by extension preserving our selves. Again, sacrifices are necessary, if your species falls victim, it's your luck.




This is not what I am saying, maybe the bit above will help you understand.



Again, above.


I will also add again that even if you were going down this path, you ignore conscious intelligence. I would assume this same quality would have been the one that would have given 'god' a purpose, no?

Where's this god that's supposed to give us a purpose anyhow? We make our purposes, our genes definitely aid in shaping them as well.





*we still have serfs in 9ja though, suffering and smiling

My friend you go again. Now you seem to have realized that Self-preservation and self-sacrifice are mutually exclusive so you have come up with the argument that there is an intricate complex relationship between organisms so that one species' loss becomes a benefit for another species i.e. species become inter-dependent and humans led by nature somehow play a role as defenders of all life. This is all well and good but I hope you do realize that by doing this, you have given nature a will and it is no longer an indifferent spectator.

The moment you give nature a will and purpose like this in that it moves in a definite direction, you have simply defined nature as God (an ultimate power that determines outcomes of all species) and your argument becomes similar to "God (nature) has a plan for everything."

Perhaps i have misread you again. If so, let us cut the chase by asking: Does nature have a will? Yes or no.

Mr_Anony:
My friend you go again. Now you seem to have realized that Self-preservation and self-sacrifice are mutually exclusive so you have come up with the argument that there is an intricate complex relationship between organisms so that one species' loss becomes a benefit for another species i.e. species become inter-dependent and humans led by nature somehow play a role as defenders of all life. This is all well and good but I hope you do realize that by doing this, you have given nature a will and it is no longer an indifferent spectator.

The moment you give nature a will and purpose like this in that it moves in a definite direction, you have simply defined nature as God (an ultimate power that determines outcomes of all species) and your argument becomes similar to "God (nature) has a plan for everything."

Perhaps i have misread you again. If so, let us cut the chase by asking: Does nature have a will? Yes or no.

Obviously not


The rest of your post is I'll wait to see where you're going first before concluding.
It's not complex, it's a self-repeating pattern. If we ever reach the stars, that pattern will repeat itself. Conquer the galaxy? It will repeat itself, etc.
There's nothing particularly special about humans. We just happen to have will and intelligence, so we're best equipped to preserve biodiversity, or simply put, life
Self preservation requires sacrifice

Again, the rest is

wiegraf:

Obviously not


The rest of your post is I'll wait to see where you're going first before concluding.
It's not complex, it's a self-repeating pattern. If we ever reach the stars, that pattern will repeat itself. Conquer the galaxy? It will repeat itself, etc.
There's nothing particularly special about humans. We just happen to have will and intelligence, so we're best equipped to preserve biodiversity, or simply put, life
Self preservation requires sacrifice

Again, the rest is

Good. How can something that does not have a will or a purpose become the basis for morality.

The reason I had to cut that chase is because we had started veering off and chasing red herrings. If nature does not have a will, then it cannot be the basis for morality. As far as nature is concerned, it doesn't matter which organisms dies and which one survives. Whatever an organism does is just what the organism has done. It is neither morally good nor evil. That's the core of the point I've been making all along.

Mr_Anony:
Good. How can something that does not have a will or a purpose become the basis for morality.

The reason I had to cut that chase is because we had started veering off and chasing red herrings. If nature does not have a will, then it cannot be the basis for morality. As far as nature is concerned, it doesn't matter which organisms dies and which one survives. Whatever an organism does is just what the organism has done. It is neither morally good nor evil. That's the core of the point I've been making all along.

Nature doesn't have a will, life does. To survive. That entails preserving life

No red herrings here, all connected and related. Cooperation and greater good, or greater profit, so to speak. I don't see why you need an external 'moral giver'. Do you need something to dictate morals to you. Look around you, that's what we've been doing for millenia. And we generally improve it as time goes on, just like we improve our other tools

wiegraf:

Nature doesn't have a will, life does. To survive. That entails preserving life

This is a bad state statement. life is a state of being not an entity with a purpose. What you have just said here is "life wants to be alive" pure meaninglessness

No red herrings here, all connected and related. Cooperation and greater good, or greater profit, so to speak. I don't see why you need an external 'moral giver'. Do you need something to dictate morals to you. Look around you, that's what we've been doing for millenia. And we generally improve it as time goes on, just like we improve our other tools

This is where you miss the point of God being the basis of morality. The argument is simple. Without a definite God with a will and a purpose, we have no basis for objective moral values. I.e. the nature and character of God is the basis for morality.

If you argue here as you did in the other thread that there is no objective morality, then you once again destroy your argument because there would be no good and no evil and the whole concept of "greater good" becomes meaningless once again.

Mr_Anony:
This is a bad state statement. life is a state of being not an entity with a purpose. What you have just said here is "life wants to be alive" pure meaninglessness

The bold, precisely correct. It's an excellent statement. Call it meaningless, why? If you can't explain, then you're LALALALA'ing

Mr_Anony:
This is where you miss the point of God being the basis of morality. The argument is simple. Without a definite God with a will and a purpose, we have no basis for objective moral values. I.e. the nature and character of God is the basis for morality.

If you argue here as you did in the other thread that there is no objective morality, then you once again destroy your argument because there would be no good and no evil and the whole concept of "greater good" becomes meaningless once again.

Greater good means, to our genes, surviving. This entails preserving life, simple. You could build a moral system around preserving life, in fact that is more or else what we do (except quite a few religious have gotten the idea than an unsubstantiated 'next life' is more important). But it will always be subjective in the sense that we are the ones defining the code. It will always be life coming up with this code. You could say the apex predator (tempered by natural selection and genetics, or evolution) dictates ultimately in a sense. Since we're rather primitive and the apex predators on most of the habitable space on this rock, it is built around us. So we generally treat other life with impunity. Sure all species have they're own systems, but they generally bend to our will.

Anyways, we have a will and purpose, we are the basis for our own moral values.

Again, you happen to have consciousness and intelligence, the same attributes your god would have used to fashion out a will and purpose. I wouldn't shirk away from the responsibility of providing myself with will/purpose. It's better than looking for a cop-out in 'god'

YuyUj

Mr_Anony:
Actually, outsider observation is very much needed for your argument to stand. You are within. The laws you observe only describe what you are seeing inside and based on those laws you can determine outcomes for things within the universe. If anything is happening to the universe on the outside, you cannot know by observing from within because you have absolutely no idea what laws - if there are any - determine the universe from the outside.

Good but remember that you are a character within the game you cannot know if you are on an Xbox or on a Playstation. All you know is your game universe.
For instance, assuming that you are a character in a 2d game. You would have absolutely no idea that there is such a thing as a 3d reality. 2d in this instance does not determine the game it only describes it. Do you get my point now?

You are correct here, however it doesn't apply to what I'm saying neither is observation relevant yet. What I have been saying is that pre existent physical laws necessitate complexity and thereafter design. Whether we observe it or not isn't useful. But the theoretical point stands that as long as God pre existed or created them, he isn't compelled nor was it necessary to create a diverse complex universe. Therefore you can't say the complex design of this universe is the handiwork/footwork of God.

[b]A teleological or design argument[1][2][3] is an a posteriori argument for the existence of God based on apparent design and purpose in the universe. The argument is based on an interpretation of teleology wherein purpose and design appear to exist in nature beyond the scope of any such human activities. The teleological argument suggests that, given this premise, the existence of a designer can be assumed, typically presented as God. Various concepts of teleology originated in ancient philosophy and theology.

In the Middle Ages, the Islamic philosopher Averroes introduces a teleological argument. Later, a teleological argument is the fifth of Saint Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways, his rational proofs for the existence of God. The teleological argument was continued by empiricists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, who believed that the order in the world suggested the existence of God. William Paley developed these ideas with his version of the watch maker analogy. He argued that in the same way a watch's complexity implies the existence of its maker, so too one may infer the Creator of the universe exists, given the evident complexity of Nature. This argument resonates with a notion of the fine-tuned Universe, [/b]

Assuming God was creating from himself or nothing, why will he finetune the universe, as a car engineer finetunes his car? The car engineer has to obey the laws of motion otherwise he wouldn't be able to meet his targets/purpose.

However God by his omnipotence can will whatever he wishes without restrict. Even to the point of creating physical laws and ensuring constant order and predictablility

[b]A teleological or design argument[1][2][3] is an a posteriori argument for the existence of God based on apparent design and purpose in the universe. The argument is based on an interpretation of teleology wherein purpose and design appear to exist in nature beyond the scope of any such human activities. The teleological argument suggests that, given this premise, the existence of a designer can be assumed, typically presented as God. Various concepts of teleology originated in ancient philosophy and theology.

In the Middle Ages, the Islamic philosopher Averroes introduces a teleological argument. Later, a teleological argument is the fifth of Saint Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways, his rational proofs for the existence of God. The teleological argument was continued by empiricists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, who believed that the order in the world suggested the existence of God. William Paley developed these ideas with his version of the watch maker analogy. He argued that in the same way a watch's complexity implies the existence of its maker, so too one may infer the Creator of the universe exists, given the evident complexity of Nature. This argument resonates with a notion of the fine-tuned Universe, [/b]

Assuming God was creating from himself or nothing, why will he finetune the universe, as a car engineer finetunes his car? The car engineer has to obey the laws of motion otherwise he wouldn't be able to meet his targets/purpose.

However God by his omnipotence can will whatever he wishes without restrict. Even to the point of creating physical laws and ensuring constant order and predictablility

wiegraf:

The bold, precisely correct. It's an excellent statement. Call it meaningless, why? If you can't explain, then you're LALALALA'ing

Lol, "life wants to be alive" is now an excellent statement abi? How exactly does life live? I think we are now entering the realm where you begin to resort to meaningless statements. Anyway, here's a few more for "length wants to be long", "heat wants to be hot" if these are equally excellent statements to you, then I really can't help you.

Greater good means, to our genes, surviving. This entails preserving life, simple. You could build a moral system around preserving life, in fact that is more or else what we do (except quite a few religious have gotten the idea than an unsubstantiated 'next life' is more important). But it will always be subjective in the sense that we are the ones defining the code. It will always be life coming up with this code. You could say the apex predator (tempered by natural selection and genetics, or evolution) dictates ultimately in a sense. Since we're rather primitive and the apex predators on most of the habitable space on this rock, it is built around us. So we generally treat other life with impunity. Sure all species have they're own systems, but they generally bend to our will.

Anyways, we have a will and purpose, we are the basis for our own moral values.

Again, you happen to have consciousness and intelligence, the same attributes your god would have used to fashion out a will and purpose. I wouldn't shirk away from the responsibility of providing myself with will/purpose. It's better than looking for a cop-out in 'god'

Once again in rejecting God you have chosen the route of subjective morality. I would like you to note that just as easily as we can choose self-preservation as the greatest good, we can equally choose self-destruction or the destruction of others as our greatest good or whatever else we like. By making man the basis of our moral values, you have once again stripped morality of it's meaning. I knew it would come to this.

This proves my point all along, without God, objective morality does not exist. Subjective morality means that morality becomes whatever each person defines it as, therefore morality loses it's meaning.

Thank you for your time and good luck to you once again.

Kay 17: YuyUj

You are correct here, however it doesn't apply to what I'm saying neither is observation relevant yet. What I have been saying is that pre existent physical laws necessitate complexity and thereafter design. Whether we observe it or not isn't useful. But the theoretical point stands that as long as God pre existed or created them, he isn't compelled nor was it necessary to create a diverse complex universe. Therefore you can't say the complex design of this universe is the handiwork/footwork of God.

Your argument sounds like the universe is a certain way, God could have made it a different way or many different ways. Since the universe is this way and not another then God didn't make it. It doesn't follow.

It is like if I argued upon observing your footprints that your footprints show an east-west movement when you had the choice to go multiple directions therefore since it wasn't necessary for you to go east-west, the footprints are therefore not yours. It doesn't follow.

Where did I ever imply I was making a case for objective morality? Did you even ask me to? This is what sparked this all up

Mr_Anony:
My argument is simple: Self-sacrifice does not logically follow from self-preservation. If you think it does, then please explain how so

You seem to have a rather short memory when it's convenient.

Moving on

Mr_Anony:
Lol, "life wants to be alive" is now an excellent statement abi? How exactly does life live? I think we are now entering the realm where you begin to resort to meaningless statements. Anyway, here's a few more for "length wants to be long", "heat wants to be hot" if these are equally excellent statements to you, then I really can't help you.

You've resorted to this? Weak. Very. Do you need diagrams while I explain this? Or a miracle or two added to the process to help you understand? It's simple, organisms that are alive, want to live. How in the world could you not comprehend that unless you're being willfully blind?

Mr_Anony:
Once again in rejecting God you have chosen the route of subjective morality. I would like you to note that just as easily as we can choose self-preservation as the greatest good, we can equally choose self-destruction or the destruction of others as our greatest good or whatever else we like. By making man the basis of our moral values, you have once again stripped morality of it's meaning. I knew it would come to this.

This proves my point all along, without God, objective morality does not exist. Subjective morality means that morality becomes whatever each person defines it as, therefore morality loses it's meaning.

Thank you for your time and good luck to you once again.

This is post so....brainwashed? You're afraid of a world without 'god', sorry. That's the cold hard truth, deal with it (well, you are subscribing to an imaginary entity to do so, I would have preferred you didn't but meh).



First bold, what god? Which of the myriad unsubstantiated ones? Are you going to revert to the ridiculousness of there was no morality before christ? Look at what religion has done to you...

Second bold is true, but we would have to overcome our innate desire to achieve that. We could of course accomplish this since we are conscious and have intelligence. We could potentially overwrite our most basic programming (instinctual will to survive) using our more advanced one (consciousness and intelligence). Cool, right? Then again, this all depends on whether our universe is deterministic or not.

Third, again, you might be able to build one around the concept of natural evil. But that would be real tough.

The last bold is unambiguously an opinion, and a rather misguided leap


Either ways, I've shown you how nature has shaped our morality, and in fact continues to influence it. Where you want to take it from there is of course your prerogative.


edits

wiegraf: Where did I ever imply I was making a case for objective morality? Did you even ask me to? This is what sparked this all up


You seem to have a rather short memory when it's convenient.

Moving on

Lol, You are overlooking the big picture of what this whole argument has been about from the beginning. Perhaps you have forgotten that the comment you quoted lies in the context of an debate to discover the basis for morality.
If morality was never objective in your book, then what morality have you been talking about all along? If there is no good and evil that we can point with certainty, then what exactly are we pointing at? Without morality being objective, you have no case and all you are talking about is the evolution of behaviours not morality

You've resorted to this? Weak. Very. Do you need diagrams while I explain this? Or a miracle or two added to the process to help you understand? It's simple, organisms that are alive, want to live. How in the world could you not comprehend that unless you're being willfully blind?

Lol, and how about the organisms that are alive that want to die? My friend you can't have it both ways. Nature cannot both have a will and not have a will. If nature has a will, then it would be binding on all organisms but you have argued that it doesn't but that all individual organisms have the will to live. Well some have the will to die. This contradicts your assertion. Anyone can claim a theory my friend but if it doesn't logically follow, it isn't worth much.

This is post so....brainwashed? You're afraid of a world without 'god', sorry. That's the cold hard truth, deal with it (well, you are subscribing to an imaginary entity to do so, I would have preferred you didn't but meh).

Lol, you are afraid of a world with God? Well, that's the cold hard truth, deal with it.

First bold, what god? Which of the myriad unsubstantiated ones? Are you going to revert to the ridiculousness of there was no morality before christ? Look at what religion has done to you...

What kind of nonsense argument is this? All you've done is say "I find X absurd therefore it is absurd". Invalid! There is only one God and He is eternal, He exists before man or anything else came on the scene. There is no such thing as "before Him"......and yeah by the way I am not religious. I am a Christian.

Second bold is true, but we would have to overcome our innate desire to achieve that. We could of course accomplish this since we are conscious and have intelligence. We could potentially overwrite our most basic programming (instinctual will to survive) using our more advanced one (consciousness and intelligence). Cool, right? Then again, this all depends on whether our universe is deterministic or not.

Lol if this is true, then there is no morality. It's kinda like saying that there is no objective measure for length and then ask someone to draw a 5 meter line? The question would be what is 5 meters? because everyone will have a very different definition of what 5 meters is therefore 5 meters or any length at all loses it's meaning. The whole concept of length disappears.

Third, again, you might be able to build one around the concept of natural evil. But that would be real tough.

The last bold is unambiguously an opinion, and a rather misguided leap

Read the comment above. If you really can't grasp the argument, then that's just too bad.

Either ways, I've shown you how nature has shaped our morality, and in fact continues to influence it. Where you want to take it from there is of course your prerogative.

Lol, you know what, your argument had a bit of sense and with a little more development, you might have been able to tie in the ends to produce something half-decent until you decided to argue that objective moral values don't exist thereby destroying your whole argument from top to bottom.

Kay 17:
Assuming God was creating from himself or nothing, why will he finetune the universe, as a car engineer finetunes his car? The car engineer has to obey the laws of motion otherwise he wouldn't be able to meet his targets/purpose.

However God by his omnipotence can will whatever he wishes without restrict. Even to the point of creating physical laws and ensuring constant order and predictablility

Nice argument.

But then you miss the point my friend. The 'finetuning' of the universe is not like that of a car which is more like an assembling rather than a creation.

The creation of the universe is more like the creation of a story. Everything about it is created by the mind, from the mind and through the mind. Everything that gives it structure and order comes from this mind. Of course this mind can 'think' the story another way but then it doesn't follow that because the mind thought it one way and not another i.e. it wasn't necessary to 'think' it in this particular way therefore it can't be the product of the mind.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, You are overlooking the big picture of what this whole argument has been about from the beginning. Perhaps you have forgotten that the comment you quoted lies in the context of an debate to discover the basis for morality.
If morality was never objective in your book, then what morality have you been talking about all along? If there is no good and evil that we can point with certainty, then what exactly are we pointing at? Without morality being objective, you have no case and all you are talking about is the evolution of behaviours not morality

Full context of what? That isn't the only time you asked me how self-preservation can lead to altruism on this thread. That is all you asked me to do. If you're interested in understanding how a moral code can be built from a biological/evolutionary standpoint and you still haven't figured it out yet then well...

And when did I give you the impression that I thought morality was objective? The very reason I jumped into this thread was to point out morality was subjective.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, and how about the organisms that are alive that want to die? My friend you can't have it both ways. Nature cannot both have a will and not have a will. If nature has a will, then it would be binding on all organisms but you have argued that it doesn't but that all individual organisms have the will to live. Well some have the will to die. This contradicts your assertion. Anyone can claim a theory my friend but if it doesn't logically follow, it isn't worth much.

No, in any which way and how? Morality clearly still exists if you haven't noticed. Each individual life forms with its own moral code.

The apex decides what is moral for society in general and tries to enforce it. Apex in most cases on this planet being the human populations collective will. So every life form within its field of influence is subject to it.

Want to commit suicide? Does the apex allow this? If yes, good for you! If no and you still insist on doing it, then you'll just have to find a way of doing it without getting caught.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, you are afraid of a world with God? Well, that's the cold hard truth, deal with it.


What kind of nonsense argument is this? All you've done is say "I find X absurd therefore it is absurd". Invalid! There is only one God and He is eternal, He exists before man or anything else came on the scene. There is no such thing as "before Him"......and yeah by the way I am not religious. I am a Christian.

If you're going to argue like this keep your folly in xtian only threads. I don't think I have to explain why again, yes?

Mr_Anony:
Lol if this is true, then there is no morality. It's kinda like saying that there is no objective measure for length and then ask someone to draw a 5 meter line? The question would be what is 5 meters? because everyone will have a very different definition of what 5 meters is therefore 5 meters or any length at all loses it's meaning. The whole concept of length disappears.


Read the comment above. If you really can't grasp the argument, then that's just too bad.

Terrible anonigy, or whatever it's supposed to be. It is more like stock price, certain factors determine the price at any given time.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, you know what, your argument had a bit of sense and with a little more development, you might have been able to tie in the ends to produce something half-decent until you decided to argue that objective moral values don't exist thereby destroying your whole argument from top to bottom.

I literally read this whole post with my palm on my face, cringing a little.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVE MORALITY. I WILL NEVER USE THAT NOTION TO TRY AND EXPLAIN ANYTHING. WHY? AGAIN, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST. JUST LIKE YOUR GOOD

Keeping with santa, it would be like me using santa to explain to a kid how the presents got to the tree.


As usual, this has been a waste. So sleepy

wiegraf:

Full context of what? That isn't the only time you asked me how self-preservation can lead to altruism on this thread. That is all you asked me to do. If you're interested in understanding how a moral code can be built from a biological/evolutionary standpoint and you still haven't figured it out yet then well...

And when did I give you the impression that I thought morality was objective? The very reason I jumped into this thread was to point out morality was subjective.

Then it appears that we have been having two different arguments all along.

No, in any which way and how? Morality clearly still exists if you haven't noticed. Each individual life forms with its own moral code.

The apex decides what is moral for society in general and tries to enforce it. Apex in most cases on this planet being the human populations collective will. So every life form within its field of influence is subject to it.

Want to commit suicide? Does the apex allow this? If yes, good for you! If no and you still insist on doing it, then you'll just have to find a way of doing it without getting caught.

Basically you have just said might is right and the majority is right.

If you're going to argue like this keep your folly in xtian only threads. I don't think I have to explain why again, yes?

Lol, your anti-christ personality just showed up

Terrible anonigy, or whatever it's supposed to be. It is more like stock price, certain factors determine the price at any given time.

That is why it is all price and no value.

I literally read this whole post with my palm on my face, cringing a little.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVE MORALITY. I WILL NEVER USE THAT NOTION TO TRY AND EXPLAIN ANYTHING. WHY? AGAIN, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST. JUST LIKE YOUR GOOD

Keeping with santa, it would be like me using santa to explain to a kid how the presents got to the tree.


As usual, this has been a waste. So sleepy

Lol of course you probably did but then where your palm is in relation to your face has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. As I have said earlier, the moment you deny objective morality, you have accepted the chaos that comes with "anything goes".

For once, you have followed your argument to it's logical end without veering into illogical nonsense.

But then the price you paid is that you are no longer qualified to be taken seriously when discussing if something is morally right or wrong because all your argument would really amount to is a subjective opinion.

. . .this is why I say that atheists have no morality. Good and evil is meaningless in your worldview. I rest my case.

Mr_Anony:
Your argument sounds like the universe is a certain way, God could have made it a different way or many different ways. Since the universe is this way and not another then God didn't make it. It doesn't follow.

It is like if I argued upon observing your footprints that your footprints show an east-west movement when you had the choice to go multiple directions therefore since it wasn't necessary for you to go east-west, the footprints are therefore not yours. It doesn't follow.

Let's take your footprint analogy, and I will modify it a bit. Let's say you don't know my footprints and there is also another person walking about in the area apart from me. Any footprint wouldn't qualify as mine. But I was the only one in the area, then mine should be anyone seen.

We have always assumed God created everything, yet we have no experience of this except seeing ourselves (intelligent designers) as miniscule gods building planes cars robots etc. But we use the laws in this universe to produce such gadgets. Rockets could be box shaped if we don't have to obey gravitational laws.

@mranony

Morality is basically rules which contents fluctate with the values and perception a society has.

Societies across the world don't have the same values, neither do they share the same perception.

Therefore can't have the same moral contents.

Good and bad are extremes on a society's moral scale

Mr_Anony:
Basically you have just said might is right and the majority is right.

Does every.little.thing need to be spelled out. OH FOR THE LOVE OF $DEITY, MAKE THIS END

I am not saying it is right, I am saying that's how it works, simple. We all bow to the apex, some try to fight it, some try to become the alpha, some don't, some are happy with it, etc. If I thought majority is right, would I be an atheist for crying out loud?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, your anti-christ personality just showed up

No it hasn't, but your anti-santa personality is just about show up. I put it to you that santa is going to give everyone pink elephants this xmas. Imaginary subliminal pink elephants ie. And pikkiwoki has decreed holding your pipi with your right hand is bad, anyone who does so should have his internet access taken away.

Mr_Anony:
That is why it is all price and no value.

Is this supposed to make sense?

Mr_Anony:
Lol of course you probably did but then where your palm is in relation to your face has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. As I have said earlier, the moment you deny objective morality, you have accepted the chaos that comes with "anything goes".

For once, you have followed your argument to it's logical end without veering into illogical nonsense.

But then the price you paid is that you are no longer qualified to be taken seriously when discussing if something is morally right or wrong because all your argument would really amount to is a subjective opinion.

. . .this is why I say that atheists have no morality. Good and evil is meaningless in your worldview. I rest my case.

Well, you now sound like a dictator. Your version of pikiwokki is going to deliver revelations that only you, or your wonderful prophets would see (mayhaps in golden eggs, or in this case, golden mud), and unsubstantiated as they are you're going to decree them law. I believe that's called dogma. So, for instance, kill those that work on a saturday, or teh gheys, genocide and first sons. Of course the 72 virgin lovers will also have their say. Yet somehow you all think you have the moral high ground. Religion at its finest. I hope it's not greed or fear that motivate you, like the fear of mortality?

I rest my case.

wiegraf:


Does every.little.thing need to be spelled out. OH FOR THE LOVE OF $DEITY, MAKE THIS END

I am not saying it is right, I am saying that's how it works, simple. We all bow to the apex, some try to fight it, some try to become the alpha, some don't, some are happy with it, etc. If I thought majority is right, would I be an atheist for crying out loud?



No it hasn't, but your anti-santa personality is just about show up. I put it to you that santa is going to give everyone pink elephants this xmas. Imaginary subliminal pink elephants ie. And pikkiwoki has decreed holding your pipi with your right hand is bad, anyone who does so should have his internet access taken away.




Is this supposed to make sense?



Well, you now sound like a dictator. Your version of pikiwokki is going to deliver revelations that only you, or your wonderful prophets would see (mayhaps in golden eggs, or in this case, golden mud), and unsubstantiated as they are you're going to decree them law. I believe that's called dogma. So, for instance, kill those that work on a saturday, or teh gheys, genocide and first sons. Of course the 72 virgin lovers will also have their say. Yet somehow you all think you have the moral high ground. Religion at its finest. I hope it's not greed or fear that motivate you, like the fear of mortality?

I rest my case.

Lol, you are beginning to slip into meaningless comments again. Since you claim morality is subjective, what do you mean by "moral high ground"? or are you just stating your opinion again? What is wrong with genocide? what is wrong with killing? Why should your opinion be taken seriously at all? You can't have it both ways my friend.

.....and yeah, say hello to your god pikkiwoki for me and have fun riding your pink elephants or whatever else he does to satisfy you.

Kay 17:

Let's take your footprint analogy, and I will modify it a bit. Let's say you don't know my footprints and there is also another person walking about in the area apart from me. Any footprint wouldn't qualify as mine. But I was the only one in the area, then mine should be anyone seen.

Sorry I don't quite get your analogy especially the part in bold

We have always assumed God created everything, yet we have no experience of this except seeing ourselves (intelligent designers) as miniscule gods building planes cars robots etc. But we use the laws in this universe to produce such gadgets. Rockets could be box shaped if we don't have to obey gravitational laws.

We have also always assumed that energy permeates everything, yet we have no experience of this except seeing ourselves use energy.
Now I have also given you the analogy of thought and how one can create a complex story by himself, of himself, and through himself. A physical being creating a spiritual universe in much the same way a spiritual being creates a physical universe

Kay 17: @mranony

Morality is basically rules which contents fluctate with the values and perception a society has.

Societies across the world don't have the same values, neither do they share the same perception.

Therefore can't have the same moral contents.

Good and bad are extremes on a society's moral scale

I don't agree with you. If that's all it is, then there really isn't any true good or evil.

Mr_Anony: Lol, you are beginning to slip into meaningless comments again. Since you claim morality is subjective, what do you mean by "moral high ground"? or are you just stating your opinion again? What is wrong with genocide? what is wrong with killing? Why should your opinion be taken seriously at all? You can't have it both ways my friend.

.....and yeah, say hello to your god pikkiwoki for me and have fun riding your pink elephants or whatever else he does to satisfy you.

You delude yourself into thinking whatever you don't want to hear is meaningless... That's quite sad. Ok, so playing your fairly childish and unambiguously mindless game

I am not just stating my opinion, I've already stated the objective of most life is to survive in some form or the other. I see no reason to deny them rights I want for myself, remember the whole lecture I gave about cooperation? So, self-preservation, aided by simple common sense and altruism leads to the conclusion in most of us that have functional brains that genocide is rather bad. Very bad. It now becomes a process of negotiation in a manner of speak. But leaving that aside for now, what's your definition of objective morality? What your god decrees?

If that's your definition, kindly explain what's objective about that. You may not have noticed that you're simply switching one alpha for another. You're simply switching society's will with your imaginary sky daddy's will (which is simply the sheep's collective will, guided by manipulators). Your 'objective' morality is simply god's subjective morality with the tag 'objective' arbitrarily added by the manipulators.

Of course, as god is a human creation, his morality seems rather like one drafted by the human minds that conceived it. For instance old testament god, many human emotions, decrees eating shell fish (perhaps poisonous at the time, with no antidotes in sight), homosexuality (no good reason, perhaps someone influential was closeted, abused or population balance) and working on sabbath (they considered it logical since they thought as omnipotent god needed to 'rest' others must rest too, ~stone age reasoning of course) as offenses punishable by death. Really? Well of course, barbarians did more or else punish everything with death, so god would do that as well. New testament god, aimed at the downtrodden and poor, slaves included, is kinder. Anything is kinder than yahweh though. Regardless he still condones slavery, misogyny etc. He's still a product of his times.

Many people with the power to influence religious doctrine know the created alpha in the sky has lots of brainwashed sheep who will blindly follow it and use it this to their advantage. Drafting laws and then attributing them to sky daddy, using those laws they profit. Though sometimes, they do so genuinely unwittingly. Examples, tithes, uncle moh and his wives/escapades with the fairer sex, etc. Fatwahs and church doctrine. Changing these laws also help the religion stay relevant, for instance y'all don't stone people who work on sabbath to death anymore. Someone worked out that was unreasonable and would probably scare a lot of sheep even in those days, as people were a little more evolved. Hence the NT. Bear in mind new laws need not always be progressive though.

Anyways, bottom line is there's nothing objective about sky daddy's morality, imaginary or not, it is its subjective morality you somehow want to tag as objective. So, if you were to answer your remarkably silly questions, like what's wrong with genocide? Your answer would be your alpha, sky tyrant, wills it so. That's it? No thought applied? Just blindly follow what your alpha decrees? Even if it asked you to roast babies and r.ape their mothers? So, permit to ask, who has the moral high ground? Lemme guess, your imaginary alpha in all his stone age human mind created glory, complete with beard, jealousies, talking snakes, homicidal fury etc determines the moral high ground? Yet human beings living in the current, much more enlightened age, whose lives will be affected by these stone age laws, cannot decide on the moral high ground for themselves? Even those who don't believe in your sky tyrant?

Interesting. I'll just add I'm extremely disappointed in you, hence the long post. To even think one would accept your god in a discussion like this... I probably can't take you seriously anymore.

Pikkiwokki decrees everything I said in this thread is correct, and he says I objectively have the moral high ground, shikena!

Mr_Anony:
Sorry I don't quite get your analogy especially the part in bold

Since there are about two ppl in the area, all the footprint§ there wouldn't mean they are mine.

We have also always assumed that energy permeates everything, yet we have no experience of this except seeing ourselves use energy.
Now I have also given you the analogy of thought and how one can create a complex story by himself, of himself, and through himself. A physical being creating a spiritual universe in much the same way a spiritual being creates a physical universe

Exactly, you are beginning to understand me. But the difference between our experience and God's circumstances, is that God had no platform but a void. There was nothing to design with. No gravity, no spacetime, no light, no atmosphere, no pressure or density.

On the subject of the spiritual being creating a physical world, it is more of magic cos you can't give what you don't have. The spiritual being lacks the physical substance to create the Universe.

Mr_Anony:
I don't agree with you. If that's all it is, then there really isn't any true good or evil.

What do "true evil" and "true good" mean?

wiegraf:

You delude yourself into thinking whatever you don't want to hear is meaningless... That's quite sad. Ok, so playing your fairly childish and unambiguously mindless game

I am not just stating my opinion, I've already stated the objective of most life is to survive in some form or the other. I see no reason to deny them rights I want for myself, remember the whole lecture I gave about cooperation? So, self-preservation, aided by simple common sense and altruism leads to the conclusion in most of us that have functional brains that genocide is rather bad. Very bad. It now becomes a process of negotiation in a manner of speak. But leaving that aside for now, what's your definition of objective morality? What your god decrees?

If that's your definition, kindly explain what's objective about that. You may not have noticed that you're simply switching one alpha for another. You're simply switching society's will with your imaginary sky daddy's will (which is simply the sheep's collective will, guided by manipulators). Your 'objective' morality is simply god's subjective morality with the tag 'objective' arbitrarily added by the manipulators.

Of course, as god is a human creation, his morality seems rather like one drafted by the human minds that conceived it. For instance old testament god, many human emotions, decrees eating shell fish (perhaps poisonous at the time, with no antidotes in sight), homosexuality (no good reason, perhaps someone influential was closeted, abused or population balance) and working on sabbath (they considered it logical since they thought as omnipotent god needed to 'rest' others must rest too, ~stone age reasoning of course) as offenses punishable by death. Really? Well of course, barbarians did more or else punish everything with death, so god would do that as well. New testament god, aimed at the downtrodden and poor, slaves included, is kinder. Anything is kinder than yahweh though. Regardless he still condones slavery, misogyny etc. He's still a product of his times.

Many people with the power to influence religious doctrine know the created alpha in the sky has lots of brainwashed sheep who will blindly follow it and use it this to their advantage. Drafting laws and then attributing them to sky daddy, using those laws they profit. Though sometimes, they do so genuinely unwittingly. Examples, tithes, uncle moh and his wives/escapades with the fairer sex, etc. Fatwahs and church doctrine. Changing these laws also help the religion stay relevant, for instance y'all don't stone people who work on sabbath to death anymore. Someone worked out that was unreasonable and would probably scare a lot of sheep even in those days, as people were a little more evolved. Hence the NT. Bear in mind new laws need not always be progressive though.

Anyways, bottom line is there's nothing objective about sky daddy's morality, imaginary or not, it is its subjective morality you somehow want to tag as objective. So, if you were to answer your remarkably silly questions, like what's wrong with genocide? Your answer would be your alpha, sky tyrant, wills it so. That's it? No thought applied? Just blindly follow what your alpha decrees? Even if it asked you to roast babies and r.ape their mothers? So, permit to ask, who has the moral high ground? Lemme guess, your imaginary alpha in all his stone age human mind created glory, complete with beard, jealousies, talking snakes, homicidal fury etc determines the moral high ground? Yet human beings living in the current, much more enlightened age, whose lives will be affected by these stone age laws, cannot decide on the moral high ground for themselves? Even those who don't believe in your sky tyrant?

Interesting. I'll just add I'm extremely disappointed in you, hence the long post. To even think one would accept your god in a discussion like this... I probably can't take you seriously anymore.

Pikkiwokki decrees everything I said in this thread is correct, and he says I objectively have the moral high ground, shikena!

Yawn..........your subjective opinions again? Go back and pray to pikkiwoki some more....you are boring me.

Kay 17:

What do "true evil" and "true good" mean?

That is the reason why there is need for an objective moral basis. As long as you reject this I can't help you. It is like asking what is 2+1 while denying that anything like 3 exists. You must accept that 3 exists for 2+1 to make any sense.