If there was no death (of animals) before the Fall, then why would animals need to eat?

[Job 33:6]

Can you demonstrate how you know that for certain in a way that doesn't depend on what you think about it then, as you just did, (ie: 'pretty simple and straight forward' and 'not dependent upon')?

Scientific evidence doesn't depend upon what I think. Physics doesn't change based on what I think of it. Your question is like asking me how I can be certain if gravity exists. It doesn't really have anything to do with what I think because evidence which demonstrates it's reality has predated me and exists independently of my mind.

If science cannot demonstrate the existence of things beyond our perception, do you know for sure if the sun was around 100 years ago? No? yet you most likely think it's a rational position to hold, that it was around, do you not?

 

[SelfSim]

Scientific evidence doesn't depend upon what I think. Physics doesn't change based on what I think of it.

Well, thank goodness to see you saying that!
Oh and thank goodness that's not what I'm presenting. I'm speaking about all humans ... (not just what you think .. (ie: as an individual member of our species).
What you think I said, is all just yet more evidence of your beliefs obscuring what I've been saying all along, however.

Your question is like asking me how I can be certain if gravity exists. It doesn't really have anything to do with what I think because evidence which demonstrates it's reality has predated me and exists independently of my mind.

Do you really think Australopithecus, for eg, had meanings for any of: 'gravity, evidence, reality predated me' and 'exists independently of their minds'? Highly unlikely .. therefore its more likely that would be just modern-day you claiming all those things existed going back in time ... and therefore, more evidence of your mind conceiving those things as existing independently of Australopithecus during their era (and Homo Sapiens, during ours). How would any of that, in any way be evidence for those things existing independently from you, them, or us?

And, (presumably), you gained the knowledge behind the model you outline above, by way of a well reasoned and evidenced, scientific method which produced restrospective, model based predictions, (or postdictions). How can any of that obvious work done there by others, possibly be a demonstration of actual, (true), mind independence? Its completely nonsensical to claim that.

Time for you to pay some credit to all the humans for coming up with all the concepts you, yourself, keep using all the time, rather than just your pretending it never happened that way.

If science cannot demonstrate the existence of things beyond our perception, do you know for sure if the sun was around 100 years ago? No? yet you most likely think it's a rational position to hold, that it was around, do you not?

Yes .. 'the Sun' is (along with time) are objective models in science, (they are scientific perceptions, if you like), which can be tested by anyone .. The results of testing the Sun/time model there, produces clear data/evidence demonstrating consistencies (or otherwise) between them and that model/its predictions and *zip* evidence for anything existing independently from the scientific mind obviously doing the testing of, and conceiving of that model.

You'll also notice that science never claims any conclusions as 'knowing {anything} for sure'. Doing so would remove the 'contextual and subject to change' understanding we have, which distinguishes science from philsophical (or religious) beliefs.
If such a claim of 'for sure.. {etc}' knowledge, is made on behalf of science, it ceases to be science, because science can't work that way in achieving its overall purpose of demonstrating practical usefulness (utility value). Such claims are thus based upon beliefs (religious or otherwise).

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes .. 'the Sun' is (along with time) are objective models in science, (they are scientific perceptions, if you like), which can be tested by anyone .. The results of testing the Sun/time model there, produces clear data/evidence demonstrating consistencies (or otherwise) between them and that model/its predictions and *zip* evidence for anything existing independently from the scientific mind obviously doing the testing of, and conceiving of that model.

You'll also notice that science never claims any conclusions as 'knowing {anything} for sure'. Doing so would remove the 'contextual and subject to change' understanding we have, which distinguishes science from philsophical (or religious) beliefs.
If such a claim of 'for sure.. {etc}' knowledge, is made on behalf of science, it ceases to be science, because science can't work that way in achieving its overall purpose of demonstrating practical usefulness (utility value). Such claims are thus based upon beliefs (religious or otherwise).

Ok, so you agree that it is rational to believe that the sun pre existed mankind.

Now, with that said, I also hold this position and consider it rational.

Therefore, I do not give mankind credit for the suns existence. Do you?

 

[SelfSim]

Ok, so you agree that it is rational to believe that the sun pre existed mankind.

You, (or one), can believe whatever you like, rational or not.
It makes no difference to an objectively evidenced conclusion (or inference).
I, for instance, choose not to believe any of science's conclusions because all that does, is obscure the consistency of the science presented ... and science's purpose.

Now, with that said, I also hold this position and consider it rational.

So what?

That makes no difference to:

i) the case I've presented about all the objectively tested meanings used in describing 'what the Sun really is';
ii) the objective evidence that the conclusion formed, depends on the minds of all the people who did the work in distilling those testable meanings .. including what objective, (or physical), existence means.

Therefore, I do not give mankind credit for the suns existence.

An apparently illogical 'about face' at the very last moment in your thinking there, if you're following the objective evidence, (which you aren't).
I say your unstated worldview - a hidden, assumed belief in rationality leading to some kind of human independent truth in the universe about existence, is revealed by an unobjectively inferred conclusion .. (whether you think that conclusion is rational, or not).

I am therefore only concurring with your own declaration: that you have formed by way of belief.
I am also justified by calling it 'a belief' by way of its consistency with the operational definition of belief:

'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'. (Both conditions should be met).

Do you?

Obviously I do give mankind credit, because I'm choosing to go with the scientific method which allows us to observe mankind's role. I'm not invoking any observationally-obscuring beliefs as you are, in getting there.
It may be the same conclusion, but our reasoning and thinking follow completely different pathways.

Irrespective of our chosen dissimilar pathways however, we're both very much observably involved in forming our conclusions .. with *zip* evidence whatsoever, for a need for anything existing independently from us.

Time for you, yet again, to pay some credit to us and many other humans, who made countless contributions along the way.

 

[Job 33:6]

Obviously I do give mankind credit, because I'm choosing to go with the scientific method which allows us to observe mankind's role. I'm not invoking any observationally-obscuring beliefs as you are, in getting there.
It may be the same conclusion, but our reasoning and thinking follow completely different pathways.

Irrespective of our chosen dissimilar pathways however, we're both very much observably involved in forming our conclusions .. with *zip* evidence whatsoever, for a need for anything existing independently from us.

Time for you, yet again, to pay some credit to us and many other humans, who made countless contributions along the way.

Ok, good job.

That's all the conversation was about, and that's all I've ever been saying from the very start. And I'm glad you agree.

That's it.

I've already said multiple times in this thread that I give credit to people, in particular, the topic originally was on morality, and I said multiple times that people absolutely can make moral decisions and I give them credit for that. But, as the conversation went, what I don't give people credit for, are things that pre existed us, such as the human nature that allows for moral decisions, me having a right arm, gravity, the sun, etc.

That's all that was ever being said from the very beginning.

 

[Astrid]

Ok, good job.

That's all the conversation was about, and that's all I've ever been saying from the very start. And I'm glad you agree.

That's it.

I've already said multiple times in this thread that I give credit to people, in particular, the topic originally was on morality, and I said multiple times that people absolutely can make moral decisions and I give them credit for that. But, as the conversation went, what I don't give people credit for, are things that pre existed us, such as the human nature that allows for moral decisions, me having a right arm, gravity, the sun, etc.

That's all that was ever being said from the very beginning.

Moral decisions only, or for originating standards of
morality and ethics.

 

[Job 33:6]

Moral decisions only, or for originating standards of
morality and ethics.

I don't think I can give credit to people for at least some standards of morality. For example, murder of your children. It's something that we view as morally wrong, but I don't think we necessarily control that "standard", rather I think it more likely stemmed more from our natural evolution of self preservation which runs counter to killing our children.

Other things, like shaking someone's hand for example, that could be a standard of respect that we've invented, that could be a sort of moral standard I suppose.

So I guess it would depend on what you mean. Generally speaking, I don't think I would give people credit for original morality or moral standards though. I don't think we really invented morals by a conscious decision so much as we were simply born into them.

 

[Astrid]

I don't think I can give credit to people for at least some standards of morality. For example, murder of your children. It's something that we view as morally wrong, but I don't think we necessarily control that "standard", rather I think it more likely stemmed more from our natural evolution of self preservation which runs counter to killing our children.

Other things, like shaking someone's hand for example, that could be a standard of respect that we've invented, that could be a sort of moral standard I suppose.

So I guess it would depend on what you mean. Generally speaking, I don't think I would give people credit for original morality or moral standards though. I don't think we really invented morals by a conscious decision so much as we were simply born into them.

Either way takes no bible or supernatural intervention

 

[Job 33:6]

Either way takes no bible or supernatural intervention

I disagree with this belief, that perhaps there's nothing supernatural in or beyond our universe.

 

[Platte]

I don't think I can give credit to people for at least some standards of morality. For example, murder of your children. It's something that we view as morally wrong, but I don't think we necessarily control that "standard", rather I think it more likely stemmed more from our natural evolution of self preservation which runs counter to killing our children.

Other things, like shaking someone's hand for example, that could be a standard of respect that we've invented, that could be a sort of moral standard I suppose.

So I guess it would depend on what you mean. Generally speaking, I don't think I would give people credit for original morality or moral standards though. I don't think we really invented morals by a conscious decision so much as we were simply born into them.

It’s definitely not a moral thing. Mothers kill almost 1,000,000 of their children every year (abortion)

 

[SelfSim]

I disagree with this belief, that perhaps there's nothing supernatural in or beyond our universe.

'Supernatural in or beyond our universe' being another belief.

So, its my belief vs your belief .. and pistols at 50 paces at dawn to sort it out, eh?

 

[SelfSim]

It’s definitely not a moral thing. Mothers kill almost 1,000,000 of their children every year (abortion)

And forcing families to live in a state of squalor and perpetual emotional turmoil is moral, eh?

 

[Astrid]

I disagree with this belief, that perhaps there's nothing supernatural in or beyond our universe.

That leaves me with no idea whether you think god n bible
were necessary for anything in human development.

 

[Job 33:6]

It’s definitely not a moral thing. Mothers kill almost 1,000,000 of their children every year (abortion)

That is true. But to be fair, how many mother's would still kill their children after they've already grown up into term babies? Probably far less. I love the delicious taste of a cheeseburger, but something will forever sit uneasy with me when I actually have to butcher an animal.

 

[Astrid]

That is true. But to be fair, how many mother's would still kill their children after they've already grown up into term babies? Probably far less. I love the delicious taste of a cheeseburger, but something will forever sit uneasy with me when I actually have to butcher an animal.

Do as I do. Be kind to animals by not eating them.

Or take full responsibility for the death of creatures you eat.

 

[Job 33:6]

Do as I do. Be kind to animals by not eating them.

Or take full responsibility for the death of creatures you eat.

What does taking responsibility entail?

 

[Astrid]

What does taking responsibility entail?

Is this a moral / ethical question you
cant figure out for yourself?

 

[SelfSim]

What does taking responsibility entail?

Accepting that death is part of life.

 

[Job 33:6]

Is this a moral / ethical question you
cant figure out for yourself?

I was just curious of what you meant. If you d ok nt want to clarify, that's fine.

 

[Astrid]

I was just curious of what you meant. If you d ok nt want to clarify, that's fine.

It's not me with the dilemma