The Evolution of Morality

[HitchSlap]

We do know exactly that life could not have evolved on earth if certain parameters were even in the smallest degree different. Life on earth in the universe could not have existed if the tuning of many elements were the least bit different.

How do you know this?

 

[Ellwood3]

How do you know this?

Try breathing in a room with inadequate oxygen sometime. Are you suggesting the Universe isn't fine-tuned? You're defying science. Life, in particular, exists within find parameters.

But the original issue in this thread, was about the evolution of morality. Are you assuming morality is the goal?

Put another way, whether or not morality could or has evolved is immaterial to the reality that God can (and happens to) exist regardless.


Atheism... that metaphorical elephant that makes puddles as big as Lake Tanganyika in the proverbial room of human consciousness. Maybe it's time we talk about it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Try breathing in a room with inadequate oxygen sometime. Are you suggesting the Universe isn't fine-tuned? You're defying science. Life, in particular, exists within find parameters.

But the original issue in this thread, was about the evolution of morality. Are you assuming morality is the goal?

Put another way, whether or not morality could or has evolved is immaterial to the reality that God can (and happens to) exist regardless.


Atheism... that metaphorical elephant that makes puddles as big as Lake Tanganyika in the proverbial room of human consciousness. Maybe it's time we talk about it.

Yes, I'm suggesting the "fine tuning" argument is a subjective one. We're here to observe life as it is. Is a puddle perfectly designed for the hole it's in?

Morality is something we determine.

As for real gods existing... I'll consider any evidence you may have of it's existence.

 

[nuttypiglet]

How has science concluded that their paths come to God? Please be specific and cite the scientists doing the work that made this claim.

I've already given you a good example, re-read my post. It is the FACT that there are too many perfect laws in existence by chance alone. If you ask any REAL scientist, they will admit this and quote the multiverse theory.

 

[nuttypiglet]

We don't know that at all, actually. We could speculate on such things, but there's no way to actually test and see if life could or could not arise in a universe with different parameters. We have a sample set of exactly one.

You're also assuming that the laws of nature could actually be any different than what they are. There's no reason to assume this.



Not really.



Many scientists believe in God just fine.



God, by definition, is the most complex thing that could ever possibly exist. How is that a 'simple' explanation.

Anyway - no. Science doesn't favor simply explanations over complex ones. It favors natural explanations - because science is the study of the natural world. God, even if he exists, is not natural - he can't be falsified, among other things. Science can make no comment on such a being.

If you ask a REAL scientist, they will not agree with your comments. THEY can see the problem with so many finely tuned laws. You say we don't know if life could exist if we alter any of them? well again, ask the REAL scientists before making such claims.

 

[nuttypiglet]

What tuning? You don't know if the values of the constants could be different, do you?

Well actually we do, it's called computer modelling and mathematics. Again, we have people pretending to be scientists who haven't a CLUE about what's really going on.

 

[bhsmte]

I've already given you a good example, re-read my post. It is the FACT that there are too many perfect laws in existence by chance alone. If you ask any REAL scientist, they will admit this and quote the multiverse theory.

Over 80% of the members of the national academy of sciences dont believe in God, so your theory doesnt hold.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Yes, I'm suggesting the "fine tuning" argument is a subjective one. We're here to observe life as it is. Is a puddle perfectly designed for the hole it's in?

Morality is something we determine.

As for real gods existing... I'll consider any evidence you may have of it's existence.

Morality is something we determine yes, BUT it isn't universal around the world is it. In some places eating other humans is considered moral. What we are saying is that we can't decide what is truly right or wrong, it must come from a higher authority. I think the difference is possibly that you see us as animals, whereas we see ourselves much higher than that.

 

[HitchSlap]

Morality is something we determine yes, BUT it isn't universal around the world is it. In some places eating other humans is considered moral. What we are saying is that we can't decide what is truly right or wrong, it must come from a higher authority. I think the difference is possibly that you see us as animals, whereas we see ourselves much higher than that.

Yes, all we have around the world are people and societies developing their own morals. As for universal morality, one hundred and fifty years ago, you could own another human being as property... in the U.S.

 

[Davian]

What tuning? You don't know if the values of the constants could be different, do you?

Well actually we do, it's called computer modelling and mathematics.

I didn't ask if we can speculate on the different values for the constants. Of course we can.

I asked: What tuning? You don't know if the values of the constants could be different, do you?

Again, we have people pretending to be scientists who haven't a CLUE about what's really going on.

Only scientists that support your viewpoint have a clue about what's real?

Can you name them?

 

[lasthero]

I've already given you a good example, re-read my post. It is the FACT that there are too many perfect laws in existence by chance alone. If you ask any REAL scientist, they will admit this and quote the multiverse theory.

Real scientists publish real literature in real scientific journals. Can you present any to support your claims?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How do you know this?

Series: The science behind the news

Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it We will never explain the cosmos by taking on faith either divinity or physical laws. True meaning is to be found within nature

• Paul Davies
• 
  
• The Guardian, Monday 25 June 2007
• Jump to comments (366)

Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super- intellect has monkeyed with physics".To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you is a designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics. Twiddle this knob and you make all electrons a bit lighter, twiddle that one and you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. It happens that you need to set thirtysomething knobs to fully describe the world about us. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jun/26/spaceexploration.comment

 

[lasthero]

Well actually we do, it's called computer modelling and mathematics. Again, we have people pretending to be scientists who haven't a CLUE about what's really going on.

Are you, at any point, going to present an actual argument?

 

[Davian]

Series: The science behind the news

Yes, the universe looks like a fix.

Yes, it "looks" that way. The appearance of design, of tuning.

But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it.

But only the appearance, it would seem, according to this article.

Do you see the shapes of bunnies in clouds? What does that mean?

 

[Davian]

Well actually we do, it's called computer modelling and mathematics. Again, we have people pretending to be scientists who haven't a CLUE about what's really going on.

Are you, at any point, going to present an actual argument?

I think that would be inconsistent with np's posting style.

 

[Davian]

WE don't have evidence for the UCA.

We don't have evidence for the what caused the universe to come into existence.

We don't have a naturalistic explanation for the fine tuning of the universe.

We don't have evidence for the intelligence arising from mindless processes.

We don't have evidence to explain consciousness.

These are a few.

Still with the god-of-the-gaps argument?

 

[nuttypiglet]

I didn't ask if we can speculate on the different values for the constants. Of course we can.

I asked: What tuning? You don't know if the values of the constants could be different, do you?

Only scientists that support your viewpoint have a clue about what's real?

Can you name them?

You need to be a slight bit more specific when asking questions. Yours can mean two things. Your first one "You don't know if the values of the constants could be different do you?" could mean
a) are they different in different parts of the Universe
b) can they be altered and keep the Universe stable
If (A) then they wouldn't be called CONSTANTS
If (B) then yes, I've already answered this

As for naming them, let me just say they are the best in their fields and YOU should know who they are with your beliefs. YOU should also be aware of their work and KNOW about this stuff. Do you even know what the Quantum field is?

 

[nuttypiglet]

[/color]
Yes, it "looks" that way. The appearance of design, of tuning.

But only the appearance, it would seem, according to this article.

Do you see the shapes of bunnies in clouds? What does that mean?

Oh it's far more than just appearance. On the Quantum level, we have atoms disappearing and reappearing all the time. We have no idea where they go, or if the same ones return to the same position. This is not just something that appears to happen, it actually does happen. We then have particles which behave like waves, unless we observe them. Just the action of observing them causes them to change back into matter. Again this actually happens. It's nothing like looking at clouds and making out shapes.

 

[biggles53]

You actually have that backwards, I said that you had to have intelligence prior to morality and that you didn't have an explanation for that.

Huh...??

Here's what you said...

You would still need to provide a way morality could arise from evolution prior to intelligence and logic, how that arose by a mindless unguided process and why one thing would be more moral than another.

My bold...

Hence my question "why?"......

Satan knows God exists.

And if he does, it has obviously NOT impacted upon his free will...!

Paul of Tarsus had a purpose and died doing it.

What does that have to do with him being 'privileged' to receive direct evidence of your god's supposed existence, while the rest of us don't...?

 

[biggles53]

I can't make a judgement call on God, I don't know His reasons or purpose. I don't know if it is due to the fall of mankind. However, I do know God and I know Him to be loving and concerned with details in my life. So I will trust Him and that will be one answer I look forward to having.

You don't have to make a judgement call....! You simply have to use your own sense of what is right, fair and just....trying to work out why your god acts in opposition to that good judgement of yours becomes redundant.........why do you even need to consider why a god behaves the way it does, when you already know how to behave correctly yourself....!?