MATHEMATICS IN NATURE PROVES INTELLIGENT DESIGN

[KCfromNC]

1+1=2 is proof of the paranormal.

No, that's proof of the super-duper-natural. 0^1=1 is proof of the paranormal.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There are standards of morality which are used in order to measure every behavior as to whether it is morally acceptable or not.

If that were true, either all people would support the death penalty for murder, or none would, across all individual humans that have ever lived. It's pretty obvious that this is not the case. You can't even claim the act of murder is wrong an have everyone agree in every situation, even when it is in cold blood. Let's say I have a time machine, I went to the future, and found out my younger brother would grow up to basically be the next Hitler. So, I go back to the present, and stab him to death to prevent it. Do you think everyone would view what I did as the right thing? Killing him is certainly the only sure way to prevent him from causing Holocaust 2.0, but changing events in his life have a chance of preventing it as well. After all, Adolf Hitler was some encouragement away from becoming just another mediocre artist. But, I decide that the risk is not worth the reward, and kill my younger brother to ensure the horrific future I saw cannot happen. Was what I did in this hypothetical situation moral, immoral, somewhere in between, none of the above?

If such things as morality or justice were impervious to evaluation which involves a measurement against a standard, then we could never condemn anything as wrong.

Yup, nothing is objectively wrong. We still condemn people though; humans are funny like that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There are standards of morality which are used in order to measure every behavior as to whether it is morally acceptable or not. If such things as morality or justice were impervious to evaluation which involves a measurement against a standard, then we could never condemn anything as wrong.

Morality and justice are normative concepts based on simple evolutionary traits such as sense of fairness, which are almost ubiquitous in man.

In other words, the fundamental ('primitive') traits give rise to culturally specific frameworks of morality and justice.

 

[Radrook]

Morality and justice are normative concepts based on simple evolutionary traits such as sense of fairness, which are almost ubiquitous in man.

In other words, the fundamental ('primitive') traits give rise to culturally specific frameworks of morality and justice.

From a Christian standpoint a sense of morality is an attribute which the creator endowed mankind with.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

From a Christian standpoint a sense of morality is an attribute which the creator endowed mankind with.

From a Christian standpoint didn't God create the universe? So everything is 'an attribute which the creator endowed mankind with'.

I suppose it's as good a mythology as any other for those who can't bring themselves to accept a rational scientific explanation...

 

[Radrook]

From a Christian standpoint didn't God create the universe? So everything is 'an attribute which the creator endowed mankind with'.

I suppose it's as good a mythology as any other for those who can't bring themselves to accept a rational scientific explanation...

What's being rejected ís neither rational nor scientific. It is the opposite.

 

[KCfromNC]

What's being rejected ís neither rational nor scientific. It is the opposite.

Yes, ID is neither rational nor scientific. Neither is the idea that math proves god.

 

[Loudmouth]

What's being rejected ís neither rational nor scientific. It is the opposite.

Now we see the normal refrain of, "I can't see how my arguments are unscientific and irrational". Blind as usual.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What's being rejected ís neither rational nor scientific. It is the opposite.

If you don't see or understand how it is rational and scientific, education is the answer. Give some thought to why we see the grounding elements of morality in other animals (e.g. sense of fairness, social emotions and behaviours, etc.), consider the survival value of group cooperation and coordination, and maybe read up on game theory in biology, and evolutionary game theory.

 

[Radrook]

If you don't see or understand how it is rational and scientific, education is the answer. Give some thought to why we see the grounding elements of morality in other animals (e.g. sense of fairness, social emotions and behaviours, etc.), consider the survival value of group cooperation and coordination, and maybe read up on game theory in biology, and evolutionary game theory.

Your typical assumption that anyone and everyone who disagrees with your views is undereducated, uneducated, or ignorant in some mysteriously profound way doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your typical assumption that anyone and everyone who disagrees with your views is undereducated, uneducated, or ignorant in some mysteriously profound way doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

My irony meter just exploded.

 

[Radrook]

If that were true, either all people would support the death penalty for murder, or none would, across all individual humans that have ever lived. It's pretty obvious that this is not the case. You can't even claim the act of murder is wrong an have everyone agree in every situation, even when it is in cold blood. Let's say I have a time machine, I went to the future, and found out my younger brother would grow up to basically be the next Hitler. So, I go back to the present, and stab him to death to prevent it. Do you think everyone would view what I did as the right thing? Killing him is certainly the only sure way to prevent him from causing Holocaust 2.0, but changing events in his life have a chance of preventing it as well. After all, Adolf Hitler was some encouragement away from becoming just another mediocre artist. But, I decide that the risk is not worth the reward, and kill my younger brother to ensure the horrific future I saw cannot happen. Was what I did in this hypothetical situation moral, immoral, somewhere in between, none of the above?


Yup, nothing is objectively wrong. We still condemn people though; humans are funny like that.

If some maniac dentist were pulling your molars in order to derive sadistic pleasure I am more than sure that your view that nothing is objectively wrong would quickly change.

 

[Loudmouth]

If some maniac dentist were pulling your molars in order to derive sadistic pleasure I am more than sure that your view that nothing is objectively wrong would quickly change.

If the Bible told you to pull people's teeth out and cause them pain, would that make it moral?

 

[Radrook]

My irony meter just exploded.

It obviously is in need of some serious recalibration.

 

[Loudmouth]

It obviously is in need of some serious recalibration.

You obviously need a sense of self awareness.

 

[Radrook]

 

[Loudmouth]

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your typical assumption that anyone and everyone who disagrees with your views is undereducated, uneducated, or ignorant in some mysteriously profound way doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I don't have any objection to people disagreeing with my views - it happens quite often; but I was outlining the scientific rationale for those phenomena. If you feel you do understand the scientific rationale, perhaps you can present a reasoned argument against it - does your own education and understanding of it stand up to scrutiny?

Whatever, it was just a suggestion; I wasn't seriously expecting you to take it up, but it might help someone who does want to learn about it.

 

[Radrook]

I don't have any objection to people disagreeing with my views - it happens quite often; but I was outlining the scientific rationale for those phenomena. If you feel you do understand the scientific rationale, perhaps you can present a reasoned argument against it - does your own education and understanding of it stand up to scrutiny?

Whatever, it was just a suggestion; I wasn't seriously expecting you to take it up, but it might help someone who does want to learn about it.

What is it about the information presented in the video which you find irrational? Is it that we infer a programmer is involved where programing is indicated? I mean, whenever I ask where the programmed information came from and how it just happened to program itself for self repair I get no response except that chemicals did it. Do you really expect a rational person to accept that explanation as adequate?

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed at OP request.