Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Elioenai26]

Do show how scientists try to use the theory of evolution to explain:
1) particle-antiparticle condensation,
2) quantum tunneling,
3) cosmogeny, and
4) the existence of the Moon.

I do not have to because you conveniently missed the main thrust of my post, which means your four articles above are aimed at a strawman.

Scientific Naturalists use the T.E.N.S within their preconceived, question begging, predetermined natural framework to explain not only the microevolution within a species but macroevolution across species. Not only is this done, but they go one further and attempt to encompass ALL biological realities and matters of life, even the very origin of first life, within it's ever increasing umbrella.

 

[Elioenai26]

It was noted. But don't worry about it Elio. It's like lying for Jesus; it's okay if it's done for a "good" cause.

One does wonder where they get their morals from.

If you can post a link to an external website, surely you can post a link to my supposed plagiarization. I really would like to hear something from you besides one liners. Tell me, what is your ontological view of reality?

 

[Illuminaughty]

Proponents of it maintain that all that constitutes reality can be explained via naturalistic explanations.

Do all naturalists make the assertion that everything is explainable ?

 

[Elioenai26]

Do all naturalists make the assertion that everything is explainable ?

With regards you your question, Dawkins sums it up neatly when he asserts that: "everything is well on the way to being explained by science..."

In other words, if anything requires an explanation, it either has been, or will be explained by science and the explanation will be a natural one.

If they are faithful to metaphysical naturalism, they must maintain that nature encompasses all that exists throughout space and time. Of course you have some slippery naturalists who, when pressed to validate their view, will try to slither and slide out of it by attempting to redefine the term.

But just read the current work of scientists who are naturalists. They will tell you. I have supplied some of their quotes already for review.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I do not have to because you conveniently missed the main thrust of my post, which means your four articles above are aimed at a strawman.

You said that scientists use the theory of evolution to explain all reality ("Scientists do not take General Relativity and try to explain all of reality by it the way natrualistic scientists do with the T.E.N.S."). Prove it.

Scientific Naturalists use the T.E.N.S within their preconceived, question begging, predetermined natural framework to explain not only the microevolution within a species but macroevolution across species.

Do explain how this constitutes an explanation for all reality.

Not only is this done, but they go one further and attempt to encompass ALL biological realities and matters of life, even the very origin of first life, within it's ever increasing umbrella.

Do explain how evolution (a theory on the genetic dynamics of replicating populations) is used to explain the "very origin" of life.

In reality, of course, evolution is an explanation for biodiversity. It explains how and why species change over time. No more, no less. But please, tell us more how these imaginary scientists are using it to explain the origin of life and, indeed, all reality...

(And you wonder why we don't take you seriously )

 

[Davian]

If you can post a link to an external website, surely you can post a link to my supposed plagiarization.

As I said it was noted. The link was included in post #77 of this thread.

I really would like to hear something from you besides one liners.

See post #77.

Tell me, what is your ontological view of reality?

I know how upset you get when you derail your own threads, so I would refer you to post #77, where I provided a link to a thread that I started on the subject of consciousness, which would be a good place to start.

On the subject of morals, do you think that lying for Jesus, or plagiarism, is it "good" if it's done "to bring people into the faith"?

 

[Elioenai26]

You said that scientists use the theory of evolution to explain all reality ("Scientists do not take General Relativity and try to explain all of reality by it the way natrualistic scientists do with the T.E.N.S."). Prove it.


Do explain how this constitutes an explanation for all reality.


Do explain how evolution (a theory on the genetic dynamics of replicating populations) is used to explain the "very origin" of life.

In reality, of course, evolution is an explanation for biodiversity. It explains how and why species change over time. No more, no less. But please, tell us more how these imaginary scientists are using it to explain the origin of life and, indeed, all reality...

(And you wonder why we don't take you seriously )

You will have to talk to your fellow atheistic naturalistic scientists about the T.E.N.S.. It seems you have a different understanding of its limitations than they do for many of them see it as omnipotent, as Dr. Atkins puts it.

And just to think, we have men like this teaching our children.....

What is the world coming to....?

 

[Elioenai26]

As I said it was noted. The link was included in post #77 of this thread.

See post #77.

I know how upset you get when you derail your own threads, so I would refer you to post #77, where I provided a link to a thread that I started on the subject of consciousness, which would be a good place to start.

On the subject of morals, do you think that lying for Jesus, or plagiarism, is it "good" if it's done "to bring people into the faith"?

You posted the following:

Are you aware of the site rule that states:
● Members shall not make posts which violate the copyrights of others or promote another work as your own.

I thank you for that, but what does it have to do with my post? I referenced all appropraite quotations and websites.

I love you too Davian. Happy New Year to you and yours.

 

[Elioenai26]

That last assertion - "If there is no God, then all things are permitted" - does that show itself in the real world? Do countries with large percentages of atheists have correspondingly higher crime rates, or some other indicator?

Yes it shows itself in the real world. Any student of history can tell you that the most destructive ideologies were based on godless worldviews.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You will have to talk to your fellow atheistic naturalistic scientists about the T.E.N.S.. It seems you have a different understanding of its limitations than they do for many of them see it as omnipotent, as Dr. Atkins puts it.

Again, if this is your contention, then prove it. Otherwise, you're just constructing flimsy strawmen.

 

[Elioenai26]

Again, if this is your contention, then prove it. Otherwise, you're just constructing flimsy strawmen.

Care to engage in a formal debate on the topic of your choice in a mutually agreed upon format? I would love to defend the Judeo-Christian worldview.

 

[Gadarene]

Care to engage in a formal debate on the topic of your choice in a mutually agreed upon format? I would love to defend the Judeo-Christian worldview.

Oh look, Elioenai evades when his arguments are criticised - about as regular as the tides by this stage.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Care to engage in a formal debate on the topic of your choice in a mutually agreed upon format? I would love to defend the Judeo-Christian worldview.

Not until you substantiate your claim that scientists use the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life, and indeed all reality.

 

[Elioenai26]

Not until you substantiate your claim that scientists use the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life, and indeed all reality.

They have to, dont you understand?

They have to say that life evolved from some sort of inorganic matter either on earth or upon some rock that later crashed into the earth's surface.

Or they may be so bold as to say some alien life form deposited some sort of organic life here on earth, thereby pushing the issue of first origins one step further back. I do not have to substantiate any of this. You know why? Because naturalists WRONGLY assume that EVERYTHING must ultimately have a natural explanation.

So the T.E.N.S., they maintain, or rather, they BELIEVE, will ultimately even be able to present us with an answer to the question of the origin of life.

When I use the phrase T.E.N.S. I am using it with the connotation of it being an all encompasing rubric of naturalistic explanation, not just with regards specifically to biodiversity. In other words, I am using it as a synonym for DARWINISM.

For your sake, I will use the word DARWINISM now on when I feel it is warranted.

Now can we get back to the topic of this thread please?

 

[Elioenai26]

Oh look, Elioenai evades when his arguments are criticised - about as regular as the tides by this stage.

Until you have something substantial to contribute, may I ask for your permission to ignore you?

 

[Gadarene]

Until you have something substantial to contribute, may I ask for your permission to ignore you?

What are you bothering to ask me for? You're quite happy to evade and fail to contribute anything of substance as it stands - as I just pointed out.

Put me on ignore or not, I don't really care. If you do, it just means I can refute your bumf with fewer pointless interruptions from you.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

When I use the phrase T.E.N.S. I am using it with the connotation of it being an all encompasing rubric of naturalistic explanation, not just with regards specifically to biodiversity.

Ah, there it is, your foundational error: equivocation. You're equating 'T.E.N.S.', or 'Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection', with something that is absolutely not the theory of evolution by natural selection.

In other words, I am using it as a synonym for DARWINISM.

Why, though? We already have a word for what you're talking about - 'naturalism'. We already use the phrase 'theory of evolution by natural selection' to mean something very specific indeed, and that something is absolutely not the same thing as 'naturalism'.

It's as inane as, "Christians hate America. And by 'Christian' I of course mean 'the French'".

 

[Elioenai26]

Ah, there it is, your foundational error: equivocation. You're equating 'T.E.N.S.', or 'Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection', with something that is absolutely not the theory of evolution by natural selection.


Why, though? We already have a word for what you're talking about - 'naturalism'. We already use the phrase 'theory of evolution by natural selection' to mean something very specific indeed, and that something is absolutely not the same thing as 'naturalism'.

It's as inane as, "Christians hate America. And by 'Christian' I of course mean 'the French'".

Thank you. I thank you for the correction. I want only to be very precise in these matters of language and grammar and syntax construction. My humblest apologies.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thank you. I thank you for the correction. I want only to be very precise in these matters of language and grammar and syntax construction. My humblest apologies.

Not at all.

 

[Belk]

So, I will ask here. Do you have any other evidence for objective morality? The line you were pursuing in the other thread struck me very much as an appeal to consequence.