The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[Ken-1122]

My whole point all along is that since evolution requires death to continue to progress,

How do you know evolution requires death to progress any more than it requires life to progress? What are you basing this on?

then atheistic evolutionists should not think that death is a bad thing. But you and other atheists seem to think death is a bad thing.

Are you under the impression that atheist evolutionist are the only ones who think death is a bad thing? Or are you aware that there are many Christian creationist who also think death is a bad thing.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Not knowing all the steps between amoeba and man does not disprove evolution

I didn't say it did. I was making a point that all the supposed steps that led directly to man died out. Such as we no longer see any Australopithecus around anymore. That is why death is necessary for evolution to occur.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
We dont really know for certain what these animals were doing. The articles seem to be anthropomorphizing their behavior. I doubt they knew that their young were dead at first, they were just engaging in their mothering instinct. They were just doing what they thought would help revive the young."

ken: Actually they do know what these Orcas were doing.

They dont know for certain, because Orcas cant speak. They are just making educated guesses.

ken: These were resident Orcas in the area and were being observed by Biologists. They were even given names. The Biologists that were studying them said they were grieving. Just because they can’t speak English or grieve in a way that you can understand doesn’t mean they don’t grieve.

If they cant speak and dont grieve in a way that we can understand, then how do they know that they are grieving. Sometimes even humans dont understand if other humans are actually grieving. Much less an animal that is very different from us. Human biologists often have a tendency to project their own feelings and reactions on to animals. It is called anthropomorphizing. Even chimps which are supposedly our closest relatives have facial expressions that are the exact opposite of human expressions. When chimps do what we recognize as smiling which means to us that they are happy, in fact for a chimp a "smile" means it is extremely afraid and sometimes it means it is very angry.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Even if they are grieving, that does not mean that they are moral beings or have a moral conscience. If those young animals had been killed by another orca or dolphin, the killer would not be ostracized or punished, thereby showing no evidence of a moral sense.

ken: How do you know this? Have you studied Orcas?

Explain how you would determine whether an animal has a moral sense.

 

[Ken-1122]

If they cant speak and dont grieve in a way that we can understand, then how do they know that they are grieving.

I said they don't grieve in a way that YOU can understand. Those biologists who spend their lives studying the behavior of those animals DO understand, and they say they are grieving.You are the only one who is trying to make the

Explain how you would determine whether an animal has a moral sense.

You study it's behavior and determine if it can determine what it considers good vs bad; right vs wrong.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
There are many scientists that believe in creation. Though we are definitely in the minority.

efm: Don't flatter yourself. You are a fringe, at best, especially in fields that are relevant to the subject.

I am a biologist, I believe that field is pretty relevant.

efm: As a point of illustration for those who might be reading along, there are more scientists just named Steve on this list than there are scientists of any name on this list. It also has many more scientists in relevant fields than any list of 'Darwin doubters', which include people in utterly irrelevant fields like surgery.

At one time scientists who believed that the earth circled the sun were a tiny minority too. There are many examples in the history of science where there were small minorities that years later turned out to be correct.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
the theory of evolution is based on interpreting ancient fossils, and extrapolating into the past which is a very risky proposition and is not empirically based data.

efm: Most of the evidence for evolution, especially in the last fifty years or so, comes from genetics. Not fossils. Though, the fossil evidence also confirms it.

Recently genetic evidence has also confirmed creation, for many years it was thought that there was so-called "junk DNA" because over time some DNA loses its function but gets carried on generation to generation, but recent research has shown that almost of all the DNA that was once thought to be junk actually DOES have functions.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, the law of causality is "every effect requires a cause."

efm: What 'law of causality' are you referring to? There is no such law in physics. Causality is a fundamental principle of physics, but it isn't a law like say, Boyle's Law or the Laws of Thermodynamics.

It is a law of Logic.

efm: I suspect you're referring to causality in the classic philosophical sense. Specifically, the type of cause you're talking about in reference to creation is an efficient cause. You are proposing that a willful act of creation by Yahweh is the efficient cause of the universe, in the same sense that a sculptor and their ceramics skills are the efficient cause of a vase.

So tell me then - how can something non-physical (Yahweh) possibly be an efficient cause for something physical (the universe)? How does the non-physical causally integrate with the physical?

I see no reason to suspect that it can, or does.

We dont know how yet. But we see it every day when the mind which is non-physical interacts with the physical body and the laws of physics which are non-physical interact with matter.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I am a biologist, I believe that field is pretty relevant.

It is the most relevant field, which is why it has the least amount of creationists of any field.

At one time scientists who believed that the earth circled the sun were a tiny minority too. There are many examples in the history of science where there were small minorities that years later turned out to be correct.

I look forward to your Nobel prize speech.

Recently genetic evidence has also confirmed creation

No, nothing 'confirms' creation. You can infer creation, if you imagine hard enough, but you will never get to anything like a confirmation until you can outline an actual, workable model of 'creation', complete with mechanisms, means of gleaning replicable information, and so forth.

It is a law of Logic.

So I take it then that you are speaking of the classical Aristotelian take on causality.

We dont know how yet.

Then you have no business proposing a 'god' as the efficient cause of the universe.

But we see it every day when the mind which is non-physical interacts with the physical body

Stop right there. You don't get to just nakedly assert mind/body dualism. You have to demonstrate it.

and the laws of physics which are non-physical interact with matter.

The laws of physics do not 'interact' with matter. They describe the behavior of matter.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
As a scientist myself, I trust most of my colleagues. Some of them just interpret the biological data wrong regarding the origin and diversity of life. There are many scientists that believe in creation. Though we are definitely in the minority. In the case of the origin of the universe, they have interpreted most of the data correct. The origin of the universe is based on actual empirical real time observations (due to the time it takes for light to reach the earth we can see into the past in real time), the theory of evolution is based on interpreting ancient fossils and extrapolating into the past which is a very risky proposition and is not empirically based data.

ken: Science doesn't claim to know the origin of the singularity that expanded in what we know as the Universe, they just claim it existed; it's origin nobody knows.

You act like science is a person! All you need to do is make the one logical step, using the law of causality. The universe has all the characteristics of an effect, therefore it needs a Cause that has all the characteristics of the Christian God. And some scientists HAVE made this logical step.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, the law of causality is "every effect requires a cause." God is not an effect, so therefore does not need a cause. The universe has all the characteristics of an effect and therefore needs a cause.

ken:Just because you think it has the characteristics of an effect doesn't mean that it does. Unless you can point to a cause, you can't claim an effect.

No, it does have the characteristics of an effect. ALL scientists agree that if something has a beginning and is changing, then it is an effect. This is scientific thinking 101. See above about the cause of the universe. I am pointing to a cause. God is the most logical cause for this type of universe.

 

[Ken-1122]

You act like science is a person! All you need to do is make the one logical step, using the law of causality.

You mean "leap" using causality.

The universe has all the characteristics of an effect, therefore it needs a Cause that has all the characteristics of the Christian God.

The cause is the singularity that expanded in what is known as the Big Bang. As far as the singularity having characteristics of an effect, or what was before that; nobody knows.

And some scientists HAVE made this logical step.

the scientists who have made that step acknowledge that step is based on faith not science.

No, it does have the characteristics of an effect. ALL scientists agree that if something has a beginning and is changing, then it is an effect. This is scientific thinking 101.

But science doesn't claim a beginning of the singularity

 

[Ed1wolf]

Isn't that like saying that anyone who believes in the accuracy of nuclear physics has to think that nuclear bombs are a good thing?

No, because nuclear bombs are not necessary for nuclear physics to occur, death IS necessary for evolution to occur.

 

[Strathos]

No, because nuclear bombs are not necessary for nuclear physics to occur, death IS necessary for evolution to occur.

But nuclear physics is necessary for nuclear bombs to work. As well as radiation poisoning. Either way you're taking the description of a natural phenomenon and acting like it's meant to be a guideline for behavior. It's like saying that it's wrong to make airplanes because they allow us to circumvent the gravity which keeps us on the ground.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The universe has all the characteristics of an effect, therefore it needs a Cause that has all the characteristics of the Christian God.

This has never been demonstrated in any logical way.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
My whole point all along is that since evolution requires death to continue to progress,

ken: How do you know evolution requires death to progress any more than it requires life to progress? What are you basing this on?

It does of course also require life to progress. I have explained this many times, how long does it take for you to understand?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
then atheistic evolutionists should not think that death is a bad thing. But you and other atheists seem to think death is a bad thing.

ken: Are you under the impression that atheist evolutionist are the only ones who think death is a bad thing? Or are you aware that there are many Christian creationist who also think death is a bad thing.

Of course Christians think it is a bad thing. But if evolution is true then death brings about more evolution so it should be a good thing. My point is that atheistic evolutionists have contradictory beliefs.

 

[Ken-1122]

It does of course also require life to progress. I have explained this many times, how long does it take for you to understand?

No; this is the first time you admitted evolution requires life. I have been making the case that evolution requires life and you have been fighting me on it claiming it only requires death. Now you are trying to change the goal posts and claim it was your original position

I Of course Christians think it is a bad thing. But if evolution is true then death brings about more evolution so it should be a good thing.

To recognize Evolution happens does not mean you think more evolution is a good thing.

I My point is that atheistic evolutionists have contradictory beliefs.

Now that I've shown you the error of your way of thinking, care to change your mind on the issue?

 

[Ed1wolf]

I said they don't grieve in a way that YOU can understand. Those biologists who spend their lives studying the behavior of those animals DO understand, and they say they are grieving.You are the only one who is trying to make the

Many zoologists and biologists disagree with them besides me. Read this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/14/grieving-orca-mother-emotions-animals-mistake

ken: You study it's behavior and determine if it can determine what it considers good vs bad; right vs wrong.

How can you determine what an animal considers good or bad? Morality also includes justice, and no animal punishes another one for killing a member of its group in order to enforce justice. Morality is doing something because you OUGHT To do it, there is no evidence animals do things because they ought to do them. They do things because their instinct just makes them do it according to the behavior for their particular species.

 

[Ken-1122]

Many zoologists and biologists disagree with them besides me. Read this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/14/grieving-orca-mother-emotions-animals-mistake

The article doesn't claim they weren't grieving, it just says there is no way of knowing for certain.

How can you determine what an animal considers good or bad?

The same way you determine what a person who speaks a foreign language you don't understand considers good or bad.

Morality also includes justice, and no animal punishes another one for killing a member of its group in order to enforce justice.

Morality doesn’t have to include justice; you can be 100% forgiving and merciful yet still be moral

Morality is doing something because you OUGHT To do it, there is no evidence animals do things because they ought to do them.

No; morality is doing things you BELIEVE you ought to do. Now show me a study that shows animals do not do what they believe they ought to do.

They do things because their instinct just makes them do it according to the behavior for their particular species.

Provide a study that shows the actions of all animals are limited to their instincts.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am a biologist, I believe that field is pretty relevant.

efm: It is the most relevant field, which is why it has the least amount of creationists of any field.

They also tend to be the most arrogant and least open to new ideas.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
At one time scientists who believed that the earth circled the sun were a tiny minority too. There are many examples in the history of science where there were small minorities that years later turned out to be correct.

efm: I look forward to your Nobel prize speech.

Thank you, I will make sure you get a ticket. Most evolutionists have low birth rates, so they may be gone sooner than we think. ;-)

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Recently genetic evidence has also confirmed creation

efm: No, nothing 'confirms' creation. You can infer creation, if you imagine hard enough, but you will never get to anything like a confirmation until you can outline an actual, workable model of 'creation', complete with mechanisms, means of gleaning replicable information, and so forth.

No, this was an actual prediction that was confirmed by experimental evidence. Creationists had been predicting for years that so called junk DNA would eventually be found to have a function while evolutionists had predicted that it would not. This is how science works hypotheses are either confirmed by experiment or observation or not and the hypothesis is either kept or rejected. Actually there is an Old earth creation model that is falsifiable with predictions that will either be confirmed or not by future discoveries and experiment.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
It is a law of Logic.

efm: So I take it then that you are speaking of the classical Aristotelian take on causality.

Yes.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
We dont know how yet.

efm: Then you have no business proposing a 'god' as the efficient cause of the universe.

There have been many scientific discoveries where we knew what was causing something but didn't know how. Read a good book on the history of science. For example, Galileo knew that the earth was revolving around the sun, but he didn't know why or how.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
But we see it every day when the mind which is non-physical interacts with the physical body

efm: Stop right there. You don't get to just nakedly assert mind/body dualism. You have to demonstrate it.

If you can provide me a with a slice or chunk of a mind or a picture of mind, then you will convince me that the mind is physical. But I am not talking about a picture of a brain, they are not the same thing.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
and the laws of physics which are non-physical interact with matter.

efm: The laws of physics do not 'interact' with matter. They describe the behavior of matter.

No, they are far more than that. What do you think causes the behavior? Many physicists disagree with you. Without the laws of physics acting on matter science would be impossible and we would know nothing about the universe.

 

[RDKirk]

No, you have not explained how that would be possible. I nothing died then there would never be survival of the fittest which is the basic foundation of evolution.

Actually, it's the survival of the best fit--the organisms that best fit the environment are the ones most successful at surviving in it.

 

[Gene2memE]

Actually, it's the survival of the best fit--the organisms that best fit the environment are the ones most successful at surviving in it.

I'd modify "most successful at surviving in it" to "most successful at reproducing". Survival may be a part of that, but its not all of it.

Consider the example of the thousands of species that engage in practices like sexual cannibalism, or those that sacrifice one or both parents to provide sustenance for their offspring.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
You act like science is a person! All you need to do is make the one logical step, using the law of causality.

ken: You mean "leap" using causality.

No, it is just one more simple little step in logic. Without logic all the other steps in astrophysics could not have occurred. No big leap at all. Unlike atheists that make the huge leap in faith that the universe just popped into existence from nothing, which is logically impossible.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The universe has all the characteristics of an effect, therefore it needs a Cause that has all the characteristics of the Christian God.

ken: The cause is the singularity that expanded in what is known as the Big Bang. As far as the singularity having characteristics of an effect, or what was before that; nobody knows.

No, the singularity is the single event of the beginning of the BB and therefore is just the beginning of the effect. You can know just by taking one more single simple step in logic as I stated above.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
And some scientists HAVE made this logical step.

ken: the scientists who have made that step acknowledge that step is based on faith not science.

Evidence? Name one that said that.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, it does have the characteristics of an effect. ALL scientists agree that if something has a beginning and is changing, then it is an effect. This is scientific thinking 101.

ken: But science doesn't claim a beginning of the singularity

Yes it does. The overwhelming majority of astrophysics believe that it is the beginning of everything. Read Dr. Donald Goldschmidt's article in the November 2007 issue of Natural History where he states this fact.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, it is just one more simple little step in logic. Without logic all the other steps in astrophysics could not have occurred.

Your problem is you keep making these steps that appear logical to you, but your steps don't seem logical to me. I repeat; science does not claim to know the origin of the singularity that lead to what is known as the big bang. If you disagree, provide the scientific data that supports your claim and quit talking about logical steps.

No big leap at all. Unlike atheists that make the huge leap in faith that the universe just popped into existence from nothing, which is logically impossible.

I’ve never heard an atheist make such an absurd claim. However; if one did, I would dismiss his claim as quick as I dismiss yours

No, the singularity is the single event of the beginning of the BB and therefore is just the beginning of the effect. You can know just by taking one more single simple step in logic as I stated above.

So how do you know the singularity has a cause? Lemme guess….. another one of those little steps in logic you keep referring back to huh?

Evidence? Name one that said that.

Are you saying the scientists who make this (so called) logical step claim this step is based on science?

Yes it does. The overwhelming majority of astrophysics believe that it is the beginning of everything.

You’ve obviously misunderstood what I said. There is a difference between claiming “X” has a beginning vs “X” is the beginning of everything.