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

[Strathos]

Well explain it to me. I am all ears.

Accepting the facts of a scientific description of reality does not imply any kind of philosophical or ethical stance.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

It does point to the universe coming from nothing physical because if you run the BB backwards you come to a point with no dimensions, ie nothing.

Nope. You come to a point - ten to the minus 43 seconds - with a singularity. A singularity is not 'nothing'.

No one knows further than that. Not you. Not me. Not the most brilliant minds in astrophysics. Absolutely not William Lane Craig. And whereof one does not know, one must remain silent (but keep searching).

True no one knows for sure, but we can come to a rational conclusion by using the law of causality. Just take one logical step backwards.

There is no such law in physics. Causality is a fundamental subject of physics, but it is not a 'law' like the Laws of Thermodynamics, Boyle's Law, etc.

Also, creation ex nihilo is not a necessary conclusion of taking 'a logical step backwards'. Ex materia is more logical, because it at least has precedent.

Or they could both be wrong, and it could have been something we are currently incapable of even imagining. Who knows?

Literally no one, that's who.

Job 9:8, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, Zechariah 12:1 and many other verses.

I knew these were coming. These verses refer to the 'stretching' of the sky like a canopy over the Earth, which was a very common belief in ancient times. The same description is in the Quran.

It's wrong, of course. The sky is not a canopy. The universe is not a canopy. This is not at all an accurate description of a continually expanding universe.

Romans 8:20-22.

This says nothing at all about a universe that is winding down. I fail to see how you could get there even with a very lenient, very poetic reading.

And of course, in both cases, these verses would be post-diction, not prediction. Not a single person who knew of these verses in the thousands of years before the formulation of Big Bang cosmology was saying 'look here, this is clearly telling us the universe is expanding/winding down'.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Science cant claim anything, but scientists do make various claims. Some say they CAN know the origin of the singularity some say they cant. The scientific data has to be understood using logical steps, that is what science is. Science is observing reality and then reasoning about it, using logic, and then coming to a conclusion.

ken: Do the ones who claim they can know the origin of the singularity put anything up for peer review allowing it to be tested through the scientific process? No. The reason they don’t is because their claim is based on personal speculation; not scientific theory

Actually Hawking and Penrose did mention the possibility of a causal agent outside of space and time in 1970. But most would not do it because it would mean the end of their career. They would be accused of being crazy fundies.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Relatively famous atheist scientist Dr. Peter Atkins does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Atkins
Read his book Conjuring the Universe.

Also Stephen Hawking believed basically the same thing.

ken: These guys aren’t a part of this conversation so they are not in a position to defend their position. Unless you are willing to defend it, I see no reason for you to bring them up in our conversation.

YOU are the one that brought up other scientists, you said that nobody who was a "real" scientist believes even close to what I believe. I was just showing you that you were wrong.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The Singularity is just another name for the beginning and things that have beginnings are effects and therefore require a cause.

ken: Now you are just making stuff up! The singularity is as far back as science has gone; nowhere is it defined as the beginning.

See this definition from Answers.com: "In Physics, singularity is a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole."

The Singularity is just the name of where the laws of physics breakdown, but not where the laws of logic break down. So logic can be used to explain how everything that came after the singularity came into existence.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, science is based on logic. Without it science is impossible.

ken: Logic is subjective. Science is about gaining knowledge through testable observations and predictions. Nowhere is science defined as knowledge through logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

No, logic is not subjective as I proved earlier in this thread. Is a hammer subjective? Of course not. Logic is the tool of science. How can you make testable observations without logical reasoning? Please explain, I am all ears.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Doesn't this apply to all people no matter what they believe? if so, why do you address this only to the atheist as if it only applies to them?

No, God did not want death for humanity originally, it only came about because of our rebellion. So death is a necessary evil for the Christian worldview, but this is not true for atheistic worldview, it is actually a good thing for humanity as a whole.

 

[durangodawood]

Accepting the facts of a scientific description of reality does not imply any kind of philosophical or ethical stance.

Well, it kind of does.

Among the various philosophical stances it implies is something like: continuity of reality. The natural laws that bracket events dont vary all over the place nor are they broken with impunity by 'outside' forces.

 

[Strathos]

Well, it kind of does.

Among the various philosophical stances it implies is something like: continuity of reality. The natural laws that bracket events dont vary all over the place nor are they broken with impunity by 'outside' forces.

Is that a prescription for moral behavior?

 

[durangodawood]

Is that a prescription for moral behavior?

Not necessarily. It is, as you put it, a "philosophical stance".

 

[Dan1988]

No, God did not want death for humanity originally, it only came about because of our rebellion. So death is a necessary evil for the Christian worldview, but this is not true for atheistic worldview, it is actually a good thing for humanity as a whole.

I don't think you can say "God din't want death for humanity" since nothing happens in Gods universe unless He allows it. He obviously allowed death to happen because He planned our salvation before the world was created.

 

[quatona]

No, God did not want death for humanity originally, it only came about because of our rebellion. So death is a necessary evil for the Christian worldview, but this is not true for atheistic worldview, it is actually a good thing for humanity as a whole.

So necessary things don´t have to be considered good. Your original argument (in which you submitted that what´s necessary for evolution must therefore be considered good) is moot.

 

[durangodawood]

No, God did not want death for humanity originally, it only came about because of our rebellion. So death is a necessary evil for the Christian worldview, but this is not true for atheistic worldview, it is actually a good thing for humanity as a whole.

Yeah. Death gives other people a chance to try out this thing called life.

Seems kind of selfish for a relative few to hog all the living.

 

[Ken-1122]

When you train a dog, you are imposing your own rules on to him. He is not making his own rules/morality. And the dog is just responding to reward and punishment. He wants the reward and he wants to avoid the punishment.

Can’t the same be said about you? God is imposing his own rules on you. You aren’t making your own rules/morality, you are just responding to reward and punishment. You want the reward (Heaven) and you want to avoid the punishment (Hell).

Morality is certain behaviors that bring ultimate good to individuals and groups and if individuals violate those rules or behaviors they are usually punished by the group by those violations in order to produce another good, ie justice.

So according to you, if your deeds goes unpunished, you’ve done nothing morally wrong, and if your deeds are punished, that means you've done something morally wrong. Is this correct?

How do you know he knows?

Body language, and facial expressions.

First answer my question then I will answer yours.

I would consider the cop who chose to do nothing to be as immoral as a God who chose to do nothing. Now answer mine.

No, we are able to train them because they want rewards, ie good stimuli, and want to avoid bad stimuli, ie punishment. It has nothing to do with morality.

The same could be said about you and Heaven/Hell.

 

[Ken-1122]

Actually Hawking and Penrose did mention the possibility of a causal agent outside of space and time in 1970. But most would not do it because it would mean the end of their career. They would be accused of being crazy fundies.

If they had facts on their side, they would not be accused of being crazy fundies

YOU are the one that brought up other scientists, you said that nobody who was a "real" scientist believes even close to what I believe. I was just showing you that you were wrong.

No, I said Science does not support your claim. Just because somebody calls themselves a scientist doesn’t mean everything they say is going to be supported by science. These people are likely to have opinions too!

See this definition from Answers.com: "In Physics, singularity is a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.”

If a singularity is infinite, this contradicts your claim that the singularity was caused by something else. So what are you saying now?

The Singularity is just the name of where the laws of physics breakdown, but not where the laws of logic break down. So logic can be used to explain how everything that came after the singularity came into existence.

No, logic is not subjective as I proved earlier in this thread. Is a hammer subjective? Of course not. Logic is the tool of science. How can you make testable observations without logical reasoning? Please explain, I am all ears.

Just because something is logical, doesn’t mean it is accurate. Consider the scenario;

The week that family moved in next door, my home was burglarized.

Logic tells me the family next door was responsible for my house being burglarized; does this mean it is true?

No, God did not want death for humanity originally, it only came about because of our rebellion.

So God in all of his wisdom created humans and animals with sex organs in order to reproduce and multiply, but he didn’t want anybody or anything to die? Do you see anything wrong with this bit of wisdom?

So death is a necessary evil for the Christian worldview, but this is not true for atheistic worldview, it is actually a good thing for humanity as a whole.

So death is necessary from a Christian perspective, but not from an atheistic perspective? Care to explain why?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
They also tend to be the most arrogant and least open to new ideas.

efm: Demanding critically robust evidence is not being 'arrogant'. That's being scientific.

That is not always true, if evidence points to problems with evolution it tends to be overlooked due to the commitment to the paradigm. You see this many times in the history of science such as the epicycle theory where evidence was ignored because it went against the majority view. This is true of Darwinian evolution it has become the entrenched paradigm and many of its weaknesses are ignored and many old just so stories are still taught as fact even though they have been disproven such as embryonic recapitulation, the peppered moth example, the horse evolution series and many others.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

efm: Considering the only legacy of creationism is abject failure, I'm not holding my breath.

What failure?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

efm: Nope. You are grossly misrepresenting the facts. There was never any period of dismissal of 'junk DNA'. The term 'junk DNA' itself was never an accurate description in the first place.

The term was invented by evolutionists, so blame them. But is the same as non-coding pseudogenes.

efm: T. Ryan Gregory spent a long time debunking this especially persistent piece of creationist mythology. I invite anyone reading along to check out his blog:

http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.c...myth-or-lack-thereof-explained-one-more-time/

Which is all to say nothing of the fact that even if the concept of 'junk DNA' were disproven, it would mean nothing at all. Evolutionary biology does not necessitate the existence of 'junk DNA'.

I would hardly call that blog a debunking. He just goes back into the past and says it was thought by a few that it would eventually be found to have a function. But he leaves out that in more recent times it has been used by many in saying that it disproves design and creation. Given that macroevolution is not falsifiable I wasn't saying that it necessitates the existence of junk DNA. But many evolutionists have used it claiming it is a viewable clock into an organisms genetic evolutionary past. Read the 2005 edition of Talkorigins archive. Read the article by Edward Max. He confirms that

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

efm: No there isn't. You cannot possibly produce a workable model of 'creation', because it has no mechanisms to speak of. Mutation, descent, natural selection, extinction - these are mechanisms. 'Yahweh did it with magic' is not a mechanism.

No, if it was discovered that the universe was infinite and did not have a definite beginning that would falsify the biblical creation model. Also if it was discovered that it was not expanding and not winding down energetically. Any of these discoveries could be death blow to this model. Because all these are taught by the bible. Nobody says God created with magic, we just have not discovered yet how He did it.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

efm: That's not analogous at all. A proper analogy would be if Galileo put forth that Yahweh caused the Earth to revolve around the sun with his 'Earth revolving powers'. Had he done that, he would be in exactly the same position you are now - proposing Yahweh as a efficient cause, with his 'universe creating powers'.

No, we are making conclusions based on knowledge not lack of knowledge. Such as DNA. DNA is language like code, we know from previous observations throughout human experience only an intelligent mind can create a language like code.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

emf: Why would I do that? Monism does not hold that the mind can be sliced or pictured. That's a cartoon straw-man.

Depends on your definition of Monism. What is yours?

efm: And you still don't get to just assume dualism, a propos of nothing, and expect to be followed down that path.

I didn't assume dualism. But I did assume the mind being primarily nonphysical given that it has never been empirically observed. Also, there is other strong evidence for the mind being non-physical (though partially influenced by the physical of course).

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

efm: No, the laws of physics do not 'act on matter'. You have it backwards. The statement 'water freezes at 0 degrees celsius' does not cause water to freeze. E=MC² does not cause matter an energy to be equivalent. Objects in Earth's atmosphere were not free-floating before Newton formulated his Theory of Gravity. These laws don't have any power in and of themselves. These are descriptions of facts that would be true regardless if the description existed or not.

No, you are confused, I never said our description of the laws are the laws themselves. The laws themselves cause matter to act the way we observe matter acting. Even Albert Einstein stated that the laws of physics (thereby admitting they exist) imply a lawgiver.

efm: 'Most physicists' agree with me on this. Not you. Incidentally, they are also the most likely of all scientific fields to be atheist - http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

Besides Einstein, Paul Davies stated "I have never liked the idea of divine tinkering: for me it is much more inspiring to believe that a set of mathematical laws can be so clever as to bring all these things into being." So plainly he believes that those laws are so powerful that they can actually create a universe, which is far more than just causing matter to behave certain ways.

 

[Ed1wolf]

So God does interfere with our "free will"? It´s funny how you want to have it both ways.

How does punishing law breakers limit free will? They freely chose to commit evil acts.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Thanks for presenting your "demonstration".
I´m not a "hyperskeptical atheist", and it doesn´t need one to spot the holes in your "demonstration". Every clearly thinking Christian can do that, as well.

Well I have debated many atheists on atheist websites and most of them definitely ARE hyperskeptical atheists and you use many of the same arguments they do. So you sure act like one. Please point out some holes in my demonstration if they are so obvious.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Same goes for believers in a God-given objective morality, btw.

Mature Christians obey God out of love for God not fear of punishment or desire for rewards and should not kill themselves because that is a serious sin. So that is a big difference.

 

[Ed1wolf]

BB cosmology does not posit nothing it posits a singularity. Can you point me to this "Law of causality" and how it has been tested in the creation of a universe please?

Nevertheless if you run it backwards you come to a point with no dimensions, so the implication is plainly nothing. The law of causality can be found in any good book on logic. The universe has all the characteristics of an effect, so it is a rational assumption that it needs a cause. At one time it was not certain if logic applied to outer space, but once we assumed it, we found it worked, so it is most likely true to the formation of the universe.

 

[Belk]

Nevertheless if you run it backwards you come to a point with no dimensions, so the implication is plainly nothing.

No, that is not the implication. The implication is a singularity. Just because the implication does not work with your apologetic does not change the facts.

The law of causality can be found in any good book on logic.

So just to be clear we are no longer talking science, we are talking philosophy?

The universe has all the characteristics of an effect,

What are the characteristics of an "effect"?

so it is a rational assumption that it needs a cause. At one time it was not certain if logic applied to outer space, but once we assumed it, we found it worked, so it is most likely true to the formation of the universe.

No, that does not follow at all. In point of fact everything we know to be true about the universe breaks down at plank time after the BB. All of our rules of logic, math, and sense come from what we observe inside the universe. The rules of logic do not even apply at the quantum level so to simply assert they apply prior to the creation of a universe is not "most likely true". It is wishful thinking and nothing more.