₦airaland Forum

Maybe man's innate fear of the dark.

vescucci: As much as time travel fascinates me, I don't believe it's possible. I don't believe it's possible even theoretically. It's possibility would be outside any laws we know. First, it's possibility would mean an endless number of alternative times. Endless. I don't wanna bore with why I think it's impossible. I believe time can be slowed down or quickened but this is just common sense. But a jump forward? No. A jump backward? An even bigger NO!

Simply beat the speed of light. Which might be impossible. I hope I'm wrong.

Mr Anony conception of morality is effectively isolated from reality. It undeniably that morality is very useful and it serves as a cohesion for society. Don't kill rule rule is preservative one and of fundamental to every society.

If the law giver delivers rules that are not for the moral adherents, then he ceases to be a law giver.

There is a reason why good is itself.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]It simply follows that if God's nature is good, the only reasonable good would be to keep in line with His nature.[/quote]Since you have earlier in time, have defined good as whatever God wishes it to be. Therefore your above post doesn't address any thing new.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]We have gone down "benefits lane" before, I am not in the mood to go down that route again. Our morality is subject to God and objective to us[/quote]So morality is basically God saying his own. And there is no reasonable obligation to follow it?!

^^^

What of Reason??

What reference point would God use?? His wishes or his benefits or our benefits?? Or merely arbitrary??

vescucci: There has got to be some form of life somewhere else if we believe life just sprung up here. It's probabilistically solid ground. But I also don't believe the chance of life forms from different planets interacting is likely. It's like time travel. If it were possible, surely someone from the future would have visited us by now. And before now. And later and etc. You can see how this disintegrates into madness.

Yea and the dominance of chemistry in the universe. Probably distance will be the eternal obstruction btw us and them.

On time travel, I enjoy the time theme in the Terminator series. The future becomes part of the past and present, fused into one and destroying the common perception of linear time. We MIGHT be experiencing time travellers, but to unsteady to grasp.

Awareness at least in a basic state, is a readily product/effect of matter, of which consciousness an advanced state must exist.

Harnessing KAG's terms: Consciousness is a higher level of awareness which includes self-realization/perception of one's identity. I think its first an effect, a state generated by base matter eg brain. Because both experimentally, matter and energy can't be exempted from the entire process.

As to why there is consciousness?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]6.Then Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.
7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, tand the Lord killed him.
8 And Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother.”
9 But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother.
10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He killed him also.
Genesis 38:6-10 (NKJV)[/quote]Ok.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]The story you are referring to is in Genesis 38:6-10, It is about Judah's first son Er, his wife Tamah and Judah's second son Onan.

Kay 17, a few things are wrong with your allegation:
1. If a husband is dead, it is not adultery if she sleeps with someone else. It is also not fornication considering that the younger brother actually married his brother's wife.
2. God did not order Onan to sleep with Tamah, it was Judah who urged Onan to marry her so that Onan can sir children for Er.
3. Onan, spilled his seed on the ground out of wickedness because he didn't want his brother's lineage to continue. This made God angry and God killed him.

Nothing in this story contradicts God's nature[/quote]No!! They Didn't get married!

lagerwhenindoubt: There is strong (cement-strong) evidence that Aliens do exist.. They have not tried to communicate with us

LMFaO!! Awkwardly true!

mkmyers45: Ok, From the standard of a 'Judge' we can deduce goodness and evil right? Now, the nature of this judge is by his life portrayal as we can physically see...agree?

A Judge merely interprets and enforces the Rules not create them.

Adultery and fornication is prohibited, but in the same bible God order Judah's son to sleep with his dead brother's wife and of which he came on the ground.

A Greater God is one that neither dies nor is born.

Pastor AIO: Difficulties: 'Nature' of God. Etymology of Nature - from Natus/nasci (latin) to be born. How was God 'born'?

I didn't meant his birth, rather his identity/character/essence.

It does not follow that if (big if) Morality is inseparable from God then morality mustn't change if God doesn't change.

Unless you want to equate Morality to God.

I'm not EQUATING morality to God, rather tie it to his nature/essence. For most theists, good is good for the fact that it accords to God's nature.

Creator creates Creation. Creator is unchanging, Creation undergoes constant evolution.

However, the Creator passes his substance to the Created. E.g skill.

If I say that God is beyond our epistemological grasp KAG might wake up from the dead to accuse me of 'extolling the sense of the unknown'.

If you stopped trying to define God and stopped taking seriously those that do then you might find it a lot easier to deal with the evolution of morality. Or the evolution of absolutely everything else.

We are therefore condemned by our epistemological limitation to have a rational/sensible and factual discussion on the topic God. Thus you can say he exists and I wouldn't have any case to answer.

Pastor AIO: A ha! So we can start to see the problems we run into with those Savants that 'know' God so well and have him well-defined.

When we say 'God' is the same today yesterday and always what exactly are we referring to?

If a man is angry at 1pm and cools down by 3 pm and then is seen laughing at 5pm are we saying that he has changed and he is no longer the same man?

What remains essentially the same, and what is subjected to process? Can a thing be the same by yet manifest as different states of being?

What does the Emerald tablet mean when it says that all things are derived by the mediation of ONE thing?

Here is an translation of the first 3 lines by Idries Shah:

From Idres Shah


1) The truth, certainty, truest, without untruth.
2 )What is above is like what is below. What is below is like what is above. The miracle of unity is to be attained.
3) Everything is formed from the contemplation of unity, and all things come about from unity, by means of adaptation.

Here is Isaac Newton's translation:


1) Tis true without lying, certain & most true.
2) That wch is below is like that wch is above & that wch is above is like yt wch is below to do ye miracles of one only thing.
3) And as all things have been & arose from one by ye mediation of one: so all things have their birth from this one thing by adaptation.

Jabir Ibn Hayyan's translation:

1) Truth! Certainty! That in which there is no doubt!
2) That which is above is from that which is below, and that which is below is from that which is above, working the miracles of one.
3) As all things were from one.

1) Here (is) a true explanation, concerning which there can be no doubt.
2) It attests: The above from the below, and the below from the above -the work of the miracle of the One.
3) And things have been from this primal substance through a single act. How wonderful is this work! It is the main (principle) of the world and is its maintainer.



Read more translations here:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/alc/emerald.htm

improper analogy

Morality is portrayed inseparable from God, a necessary consequence of the Nature of God himself. Therefore moral contents shouldn't if God doesn't change. However following Bible passages, there is the substantial difference which is undeniable, is witnessed btw the OT and the NT.

Also, today's values are very different from the bibical ages which is not unnatural.

I didn't say cannibalism is universally immoral, but that its unpleasant to admit it.

Enigma: Therefore:

- cannibalism can be moral as it has been at some places and times.

- genocide can be moral as it has been at some places and times.

What then is your problem with "God" again?

The inconsistency in Christianity

Enigma: If you mean your own question, my answer is that "morality" is not possible without an objective reference point which may possibly be what you mean by an "authoritative source".

I have placed "morality" in quotes very deliberately because another issue would be whether you regard "morality", as you are using it, as universal or relative/local/individual etc.

For example, the logic that many atheists have presented here is that cannibalism is not immoral insofar as it is acceptable in a/the particular society where it is practised.

Can we say cannibalism is always and universally immoral?

It would be distasteful to say cannibalism is not universally immoral

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I'll quote myself from another thread. This is what I said:

".........I will go on to say that for anything to be a true standard for morality
1. It must be all-powerful or at least more powerful than man i.e. must be powerful enough to punish evil and reward good.
2. It must be omniscient i.e. must be able to properly know and understand everything and every motive
3. It must be all-seeing i.e. must be able to see a case from every possible angle. No evidence should escape it.
4. It's laws must agree with man's conscience but must be able to determine when man deviates from the dictates of his conscience.
5. It must be impartial and must deliver justice irrespective of persons.
6. It must not waver and must not change with the wind i.e. what was once evil will not suddenly become good and vice versa(note this is different from it's permissiveness)
7. It must essentially be singular i.e. it must be of one mind and purpose and must not be self-contradicting.

It is to the extent that our legal systems meet these criteria that we justify them. Do you agree?"[/quote]On the condition that moral contents are universal

Pastor AIO: The following is from a previous thread back in the day.
https://www.nairaland.com/148054/paul-kurtz-great-public-intellectual/2
:

Krayola sir,  I think sometimes the best way forward is to go back.  May I refer you to some of my earliest posts on Nairaland.  It will help matters immensely.



Thank you



We are all moral people, it is ingrained in us. And you are right we are BOUND to it.  This is a complex subject and I fear that I might do it injustice if I don't tread carefully and take things step by step.  Being Moral means that we will always pursue what we believe to be the highest value.  or as some like to put it, The Greatest Good.  This highest value is different from individual to individual (and from society to society) but each one pursues his/her own highest value.
A lot of the time what you call the 'good' is merely what you have been taught by society as good.  A word of warning though. If you really expect the good you do to be reciprocated you will get mightily disappointed.  I just think you ought to know that, it might help buffer the shock.
I don't think the mother Bison is a good example though.  Her actions may be explained as instinctive rather than moral.  With morality I see a subject having a choice between two actions and choosing the superior one.  A mother's fierce protection of her young is not a choice but rather an instinct.

The thing about our morality is that it determines our behaviour.




Having a moral/value system is innate, but just what is contained in that system is arbitrary.  Everybody values some things higher than others, some actions higher than others, but just which things lie at the top of the morality scale differs from person to person, and from culture to culture.  For instance, in some societies bravery in battle/hunting is highly esteemed as is speaking and acting directly face to face.  In other societies Cunning might be higher esteemed than Upfrontery (my word that i've just made up. nice uh?).  In yet another society diplomacy may be higher esteemed than the sword while for their neighbours diplomats and people who talk are regarded with derision while the sword is respected. 
These various value systems are what give each culture it's characteristics.  And to the extent that individuals differ in their values, our various value systems give us our individual characteristics. 

Morality is a value system that shapes our character and behaviour.  That is all I was trying to say.
This value system that we carry around with us is informed by our environment and yes, accepting the bible as a guide in your life will influence your morals.  I'm that Bush feels no qualms about dropping bombs on Iraqi babies, his moral codes supply him with plenty of precedents that say it is okay. 

I suspect that you are coming from the school of 'Deep down in Everyone's conscience we know what is Good'.  I disagree.  If you were raised as an aborigine in Papua New Guinea you would have no qualms about having another human being for dinner.  I don't mean as a guest for dinner, but actually having him on the table, salted and peppered.  I don't believe in an Absolute Morality that lies within all of us.  Morality is relative.  Your so called innate moral behaviour is a product of your upbringing and your environment.






I'm in total agreement with you here.  Everybody has a Moral structure, it is ingrained, innate, and hardwired into what we are.  It informs the way we think and the choices we make and the actions we commit.  There is no such thing as an A-moral human being.  And yes there have been moral codes in all societies since the dawn of time without the need of the bible.  And as immoral behaviour is shocking in christian society, so are behaviours that violate their moral codes shocking in non christian society.  And to the same degree of shock and revulsion and disgust. 

Where I think an important distinction must be emphasised is that the actual articles of any moral code are not fixed, absolute or universal.  Murder is not always despicable, not even in biblical Israel.  I've heard arguments from humanists claiming that everyone agrees that murder is wrong.  Yes every society disapproves of murder, but only within the society.  Theft, only within the society etc.  It's okay to kill the neighbouring tribe, and to steal their cattle and to take over their land flowing with milk and honey.  The injunction not to kill or steal was the code of conduct to be applied by israelites within the Israelite community.  It makes perfect sense that any society that allows it's members to kill each other is not going to last very long.  The bible has proved to be no different from the moral guides of other societies on this matter. 

The definition of Morality is a scale of Values with Good at the top and Evil at the bottom.  This is fixed and true for everyone.  The Specific articles that are contained within a morality, ie what is considered Good and what is considered Evil, is not fixed and neither is it true for everyone.  We are all moral creatures. In any situation every human being will always try to do what he thinks is best.  It's just that one man's morality is another man's immorality. 

I also do not think that if a man despoils a woman that he must then marry her.  The sheer fact that he had to resort to despoil in the first place would suggest that the woman wasn't much interested in the guy in the first place.  That laws comes from a mindset that does not take the feelings of women into much consideration.  My mindset is rather different.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=124453.msg2121735#msg2121735

Fantastic detail

frosbel: Atheism is by definition a no God existence, but there still resides within these ingrates that gift of conscience and awareness of right or wrong , therefore it is not unusual to see some of these creatures exhibit some flashes of goodness from time to time.

However , when a state is founded on atheist ideologies like Maoism and Stalinism, what we have is a pretty much 'lawless' society where human life is devalued and morality becomes a relative term.

Just look at Russia and the effect of decades of atheism, Vodka addiction, violence, the most horrendous kind of racism and gross intolerance for the ideas for a democratic society.


Atheists without Christ are a lost cause and of all men to be the most pitied.

Only Christ can deliver them from their almost seemingly impenetrable blindness.

This is harsh but true.

Atheism is simple. Disbelief in Gods (supernatural). It doesn't come with a code of ethics package, its doesn't define a way of life, it doesn't prescribe an ideology.

As a result, you can't blame atheism for moral deficiencies.

My morals are in line with those of humanism, which is more comprehensive than atheism.

In discussing the Origin of Life, first question should be: Is God Life??

Enigma: No problem, Kay; it seems we are actually in agreement more than discord on this.

Yep.

noetic16: 1.What is the scientific explanation for humans having dreams about future events in graphic details such that the components of the dream had not been encountered by the human, up until the time of the dream and its subsequent manifestation in reality? Hiding your ignorance behind science is quite dumb. One phenomenal fact that we are incapable of assimilating is the ability of dreams to come to reality, on its own it serves as no evidence for anything, but it buttresses the notion that there is a place or realm that is beyond the present limitations of our material world. This realm is a very strong evidence for the existence of God. Hence, I agree with the OP that the essence of dreams attaining reality is a valid argument or evidence for the existence of God.

2. Do you any scientific explanation for Deja vu feelings? To add to the OP, perhaps you should relate the context of deja vu to destiny. Destiny presupposes human limitations in many facets of life including where, how and when we are born and also many other events that happen to us in life. Thus IMO, deja vu is a spiritual phenomenum that correlates with a spiritual realm, hence, a valid submission for the existence of God.

3. Honestly, religious aside, how can you not be fascinated with the universe and the beauty of our existence? What are the chances that humans who have only lived a few decades would have answers to potent question with regards to the origins of the universe? Why do you think that this piece of intelligence could not have been the product of a super-intelligent being?

4. I agree with the OP's argument here, you have not said anything worth pondering over that counters this argument.

5. Have you got any explanation for the origin of life?

What matters is how satisfactory the explanation is. If we instinctively seek the origin of everything, then what's the origin of this superintelligent Creator of the universe

Enigma: When do you expect humanity to be able to travel to Neptune, to Pluto etc before talking of understanding the environment etc at the place(s)?

I don't know.

All those who have read on Zoroasterianism would be aware of the great emphasis on compassion, tolerance, kindness and love. The Persian might have thought Allah was Allahu Akbar, however there was a battle btw Zoroasterianism vs Islam, as who is the true messenger from God, and who preached/teaches the values of peace/tolerance.

Is islam just a tool for cultural assimilation? Is it a reflection of those cruel times? What's peace in invading Persia? What atrocities was the Persian king disgust by?? Why is the Caliph seeking to convert the Persian and offering destruction as an alternative??

Although some of the comments of the Persian were racist, but his response still holds it substance.

Enigma: Kay17

Just one point -- you say:

But you have overlooked an important word in the statement you are challenging; Cf again:

that the world in its entirety will be understood by man. Yes by necessary implication, but its a hope. Humanity has to survive long enough for that to happen.

There's nothing in science that says the world can be finally understood by the human mind

I don't think this is true, rather its a fundamental principle by Science that humans are capable of perceiving and comprehending their surroundings/reality.

Myths are a queer method by mystical humanity to further learnt about himself and the world.

Through science humans can lift themselves beyond the view of things that's forced on them by day-to-day existence. They can't overcome the fact that they remain animals, with minds that aren't equipped to see into the nature of things

Humans have fortunately elevated from the rudimentary goals of just surviving the day, and also note that humans and other Life are NOT built but building (following Darwin's views) and the advantages COULD run better clearer powerful minds of yes animals. A better understanding the world around one is always an advantage.

Darwin's theory is unlikely to be the final truth. It may be just a rough account of how life has developed in our part of the cosmos. Even so, the clear implication of the theory of evolution is that human knowledge is by its nature limited.

Not an impossibility for Darwin's theory to be thrown out. And its natural for our knowledge to be limited, that's why learning is important.

I was touched by the Persian's response. Everyone sees good and knows its good.