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

[Ed1wolf]

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.

Correct, that is what fittest means. And the unfit must die.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, it is just one more simple little step in logic. Without logic all the other steps in astrophysics could not have occurred.

ken: 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.

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.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

ken: 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

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.

 

[RDKirk]

Correct, that is what fittest means. And the unfit must die.

It's a spectrum, not a superlative.

Currently, human beings are certainly not the most fit in the current world environment, for instance. Cockroaches are certainly more fit...but millions of lesser fit species continue to survive.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

ken: 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?

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

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Evidence? Name one that said that.

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

Yes, science is based on logic. Without it science is impossible.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes it does. The overwhelming majority of astrophysics believe that it is the beginning of everything.

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

Again, see above about what singularity means, the universe has a beginning and that beginning is called the singularity. They use that term because they dont want to call it the creation.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The acknowledgement of a natural force existing in no way requires you to evaluate it or its conditions in terms of "good/bad". That rather seems to be a projection of the religious mind (with its belief in an intentional creator) on a scientific finding. To science evolution isn´t a good or bad thing, it just is.

I am not referring to generic impersonal science, I am referring to people, who are atheistic evolutionists. Those people should believe that death is good, otherwise evolution would not occur and thereby THEY would not exist nor would there be any future evolution of humans.

qu: On a completely different note, it would be lazy thinking to assume that "X is good/necessary for Y" requires X to be "good" in every way, in order to maintain consistency. I can easily distinguish between the "good" taste of sweets and the potentially "bad" effect it has on my health.
This gets even more apparent when it comes to a concept like "death" which has a broad variety of situational meanings. E.g. even if considering death as a general phenomenon to be good and necessary (because e.g. without it there´d soon be overpopulation) I do not have to like the fact that I (or someone I like) is about to die. So when you say "they act like death is a bad thing" you would have to explain where and how you made that observation, and you would have to do the same with "death is a good thing" - in order to show that "death", "bad" and "good" are used in the same way in both cases. Or else you haven´t shown inconsistency.

I acknowledge that the atheist would not consider death a good thing for him individually, but I am referring to the human population as a whole, without death the atheist would not exist and his future generations would not prosper without it in the future if evolution continues into the future.

qu: On a final note, I haven´t seen you substantiating that death is necessary for evolution to occur. Could you point me to where you did that?

Read most of my posts to Ken. But you mention one of consequences of not having death in your comment above and how it would stop evolution by overpopulation.

 

[Ken-1122]

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

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

Yes, science is based on logic. Without it science is impossible.

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

 

[Ken-1122]

I acknowledge that the atheist would not consider death a good thing for him individually, but I am referring to the human population as a whole, without death the atheist would not exist and his future generations would not prosper without it in the future if evolution continues into the future.
.

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?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Could you please double check that and provide a link? Because "IIRC I believe I did..." isn´t really compelling me to also believe that you did/tried, and neither does it convince me that - in case you actually tried - your demonstration was solid. Particularly not when I have just read #1081 with its multiple logical problems.

Well as a hyperskeptical atheist, I am sure that you will not think that my demonstration is solid. But a short overview for the evidence that the most likely cause of the universe is the Christian God, is that purposes exist in the universe, and we know that only persons can create purposes for things, and also that the universe is a diversity within a unity, which is also the primary characteristic of the Christian God, ie the Trinity. From studying artistic creations we know that aspects of the artist are incorporated into their creation, that is how art experts can determine forgeries from the real things. Also, only the Christian bible teaches the three main characteristics of the universe. 1. that the universe had a definite beginning from nothing detectable, 2. that the universe is expanding, and 3. that it is winding down energetically. No other major religious book teaches these things which have been confirmed by the BB theory. This is strong evidence that only the bible has a divine origin from this universe's creator.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

'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/

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
So if a cop was walking down the street and saw Jeffrey Dahmer raping and killing a young man and did nothing about it, he would be a good moral cop?

qua: Well, he would behave the way God does... .

No, sometimes He sends His ministers of temporal justice (the police and judicial system) if the society is based on His principles, and the murderer is arrested and executed in this world. Other times if somehow the murderer escapes justice in this world, he receives it fully in the next. But if there is no God then he gets away with it completely.

 

[quatona]

No, sometimes He sends His ministers of temporal justice (the police and judicial system) if the society is based on His principles, and the murderer is arrested and executed in this world. Other times if somehow the murderer escapes justice in this world, he receives it fully in the next. But if there is no God then he gets away with it completely.

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

 

[quatona]

Well as a hyperskeptical atheist, I am sure that you will not think that my demonstration is solid. But a short overview for the evidence that the most likely cause of the universe is the Christian God, is that purposes exist in the universe, and we know that only persons can create purposes for things, and also that the universe is a diversity within a unity, which is also the primary characteristic of the Christian God, ie the Trinity. From studying artistic creations we know that aspects of the artist are incorporated into their creation, that is how art experts can determine forgeries from the real things. Also, only the Christian bible teaches the three main characteristics of the universe. 1. that the universe had a definite beginning from nothing detectable, 2. that the universe is expanding, and 3. that it is winding down energetically. No other major religious book teaches these things which have been confirmed by the BB theory. This is strong evidence that only the bible has a divine origin from this universe's creator.

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.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

1. that the universe had a definite beginning from nothing detectable

Big Bang cosmology does not say the universe had a definite beginning from nothing detectable. It describes the earliest known conditions, initial expansion, and early evolution of the universe. It says nothing at all about what happened prior to Planck time, because our current understanding of physics breaks down at that point.

There are some hypotheses, but no one knows for sure. Anyone who pretends to is either lying or selling a book.

2. that the universe is expanding

Chapter and verse, please.

3. that it is winding down energetically.

Chapter and verse, please.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Actually he comes pretty close to saying that they are NOT grieving. But yes there is no way of knowing for certain so people especially scientists should not be saying that they are, that is his main point.

ken: That is just this mans opinion.

He is not the only one, besides myself, I have read of and talked to many other biologists that agree with him.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Therefore you can not make it part of any argument about animals having any kind of morals either.

ken: I’ve described morality as the ability to understand the consequences of actions, and determine good, bad/right, wrong considering those actions. Anybody who has trained a dog knows dogs know the consequences of actions, and can determine good or bad concerning those consequences of actions so according to how I define morality, animals do have their own morality.

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. As I said earlier, animals base their decisions on their instincts and the stimuli they receive which can be either pleasant or unpleasant, not whether something is moral or not.

ken; What you need to do is to give your description of morality and then show why animals do not have morality.

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.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, because we can learn the language of a fellow human and just ask them, you cant do that with animals.
ken: You gotta learn his language? My dog knows when I’m happy, worried, sad, or mad, and he doesn’t speak my language! C’mon you’ve gotta be better than that! If you aren’t I can assure you; the rest of us are.

How do you know he knows?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
So if a cop was walking down the street and saw Jeffrey Dahmer raping and killing a young man and did nothing about it, he would be a good moral cop?

ken: If God looked down from Heaven and saw Jeffrey Dahmer raping and killing a young man and did nothing about it, would he be a good and moral God?

First answer my question then I will answer yours.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Animals dont believe anything, their instinct just tells them what to do when they receive certain sensory information and stimuli.

ken: If that were true, we wouldn’t be able to train them to do what we want them to do.

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.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Provide a study that shows that they are not.

ken: We train animals to exhibit behaviors that are beyond, and even goes against their instincts.

Only by increasing the strength of the stimuli of rewards and the punishments. Bigger rewards and more unpleasant punishments can almost make animals do anything, even kill themselves.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You totally missed the point of the analogy...

Well explain it to me. I am all ears.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
1. that the universe had a definite beginning from nothing detectable
Big Bang cosmology does not say the universe had a definite beginning from nothing detectable. It describes the earliest known conditions, initial expansion, and early evolution of the universe. It says nothing at all about what happened prior to Planck time, because our current understanding of physics breaks down at that point.

There are some hypotheses, but no one knows for sure. Anyone who pretends to is either lying or selling a book.

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. 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.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
2. that the universe is expanding
efm: Chapter and verse, please.

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

Ed1wolf said: ↑
3. that it is winding down energetically.

efm: Chapter and verse, please.

Romans 8:20-22.

 

[Belk]

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. 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.


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


Romans 8:20-22.

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?

 

[quatona]

Only by increasing the strength of the stimuli of rewards and the punishments. Bigger rewards and more unpleasant punishments can almost make animals do anything, even kill themselves.

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

 

[Ed1wolf]

It's a spectrum, not a superlative.

Currently, human beings are certainly not the most fit in the current world environment, for instance. Cockroaches are certainly more fit...but millions of lesser fit species continue to survive.

Fit means the right organism for a particular ecological niche. If you are defining fit just as pure numbers, then yes. But there is much more to it than that. Billions of cockroaches are necessary for cleaning up the earth and eating waste and decayed food. They also provide food for millions of other organisms. You dont want billions of elephants, because the earth would be destroyed as we know it, buried under tons of elephant waste and all vegetation would disappear.