Where does morality come from?

[Ken-1122]

again if you wish to go this route, what chapter of the book in kindergarten do you learn numbers in? The math chapter.

I don’t know what country you are from, but I went to school in the USA, and at my school I didn’t learn numbers from a book. However if I did, it wouldn’t be a math book

You simply cannot win this argument. Notice how none of your colleagues are defending you on this.

I never claimed to have any colleagues here; do you? Because I’ve noticed nobody is defending you either.

It is just a bizarre sort of thing to say that numbers especially temperature is not math. If you simply post numbers (that is math even though there is no calculations)

If you define math as posting a number, then you and I are speaking a different language. For me math requires calculating. However, getting back to facts, if you want a fact that does not evolve numbers, here are a few

*Humans are warm blooded mammals
*The least distance between two points is a straight line
*You cant be “A” and “-A” at the same time.

*Cyanid is toxic to humans

 

[createdtoworship]

I don’t know what country you are from, but I went to school in the USA, and at my school I didn’t learn numbers from a book. However if I did, it wouldn’t be a math book


I never claimed to have any colleagues here; do you? Because I’ve noticed nobody is defending you either.


If you define math as posting a number, then you and I are speaking a different language. For me math requires calculating. However, getting back to facts, if you want a fact that does not evolve numbers, here are a few

*Humans are warm blooded mammals
*The least distance between two points is a straight line
*You cant be “A” and “-A” at the same time.

*Cyanid is toxic to humans

I just asked my wife, she is a teacher, and she said "yes learning about numbers is the subject of math."

ask any teacher you know, if you don't believe me.

I believe deep down you know that you learn numbers in math class, math chapter, or sub category of math. Even if in kindergarten. So because of that obvious fact, I am no longer going to debate you on this. I feel it has been exhausted, and I can no longer convince you or help you to see obvious logic. So since you are so closed minded, I will conclude this subject with you. However if you have a fact you wish to prove (other than math, or things that involve numbers) then by all means prove it. But seeing you can't and you have to use numbers, should really show you that your dishonesty in this matter is apparent and that you really know deep down that solid proof is not something we have, accept in math. And that we all operate on faith every day. I mean how do you prove astronomy? Have you flew in outer space to do the tests? And travelled the light years to do the tests? You can't, so you have faith that those who study such matters are honest, and unbiased, and accurate.

 

[Ken-1122]

if you have a fact you wish to prove (other than math, or things that involve numbers) then by all means prove it.

I just listed 3 things! Didn't you read what I wrote?

And that we all operate on faith every day. I mean how do you prove astronomy? Have you flew in outer space to do the tests? And travelled the light years to do the tests?

I never claimed the ability to prove astronomy.

You can't, so you have faith that those who study such matters are honest, and unbiased, and accurate.

If you told me you had a chicken that laid 3 eggs per day, I would believe you without question. As a matter of fact, I would probably be willing to purchase your chicken at a fair price if I were in the market of purchasing chickens based strictly on your word.
However.... if you told me you had a chicken that laid eggs of solid gold, and you are willing to sell me this chicken at a fair price..... now your word is no longer sufficient! I will at least insist on an egg of solid gold for personal inspection, and will probably insist on observing this chicken laying a golden egg under my observation. Does this sound reasonable to you?
Extra ordinary claims require an extra ordinary amount of evidence.

 

[createdtoworship]

*Humans are warm blooded mammals
*The least distance between two points is a straight line
*You cant be “A” and “-A” at the same time.

*Cyanid is toxic

have you ever tried cyanide to know it's toxic?

the second comment is a math comment

the third comment deals with logical functions, which are like math (algebra functions are very similar to the phrase posted). Logic itself can be proven. For example the law of non contradiction. If you explain out the law of non contradiction it is very similar to a algebra equation. I can post more about it if you want. But logic is very mathmatical actually. you have premises that are added to form a conclusion, which is like an equals function.

the other comment...

humans are warm blooded animals...

have you personally tested this theory? Have you went to every human to make sure there was not an abnormality? I know you will say science proves it. But if you ask a scientist they normally will tell you that science only give hypothesis. No proofs. Proofs is a math thing.

so I hope that causes you to understand more about facts, and how you cannot prove 99.99% of facts.

again, math is the exception, and I did allow for .01% of facts that can be proven. For example I believe theism is something that can be proven, see my other thread on that:

but logic itself is similiar to math, A cannot = A+, that is like saying in algebra A cannot = B.

or B cannot = C

 

[createdtoworship]

I just listed 3 things! Didn't you read what I wrote?


I never claimed the ability to prove astronomy.


If you told me you had a chicken that laid 3 eggs per day, I would believe you without question. As a matter of fact, I would probably be willing to purchase your chicken at a fair price if I were in the market of purchasing chickens based strictly on your word.
However.... if you told me you had a chicken that laid eggs of solid gold, and you are willing to sell me this chicken at a fair price..... now your word is no longer sufficient! I will at least insist on an egg of solid gold for personal inspection, and will probably insist on observing this chicken laying a golden egg under my observation. Does this sound reasonable to you?
Extra ordinary claims require an extra ordinary amount of evidence.

so you admit you cannot prove basic astronomical laws. (laws that don't deal with math)? Well that proves my point, because astronomy as I see it is a vilified science. Biology, a hard science, cannot be proven. Anatomy cannot be proven. History cannot be proven. Social behavior cannot be proven. Nearly every single scientific study cannot be proven, and they don't even claim to have that ability. so I think I have made my point sufficiently. Most people have faith in science, that they did it accurately, and without bias and honestly. And they may not have. IT takes faith in them as people. How hard would it be to change dating figures to prove a billions of year old universe, or earth? If you take a dating sample, one says 5,000, one says 50,000 and one says 500,000 years. As most dating techniques have many sample dates, that they arbitrarily choose which one is accurate. So if you have a world view that all science proves an old earth, you will pick the older of the dates, yes? I mean if the actual evidence is the same with all the dates and they were all accurately sampled? Which do you choose? You choose the date that fits the rest of science? And this is what I mean. They think they were being honest, but in fact they let their bias in. The young measurement had as much validity and the older one. The more you study dating techniques the more you realize that if a date is off, they automatically assume it to be error-some.

Here is just a little glimpse of a christian (who is also biased as well) using a dating technique:

"Geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner, part of the RATE research group,7There should be no 14C at all if they really were over a billion years old, yet the radiocarbon lab reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit. Thus they had a radiocarbon ‘age’ far less than a million years! Dr Baumgardner repeated this with six more alluvial diamonds from Namibia, and these had even more radiocarbon."

Diamonds: a creationists best friend - creation.com

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I have another very important question to ask of everyone.

I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone... that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist? Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.

If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality. But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?

I know we are already +660 posts into this thread but I will give my two cents anyway. In regards to morality in a secular sense, morality exists but it is subjective to the individual. The standards for morality is nothing more than the subjective standards of the majority who imposes their moral standards onto the minority. Because the demographics of the majority varies with time and culture, moral standards change with time an culture. Thus, morality exists in a subjective sense and the standards at which determines what is morally right or wrong changes over time. It isn't a perfect system, but it has worked for thousands of years.

 

[Ken-1122]

have you ever tried cyanide to know it's toxic?

I don’t have to. Anybody who knows basic chemistry knows the effect this poison has on the body

the second comment is a math comment

No, it's a logical statement about distance.

the third comment deals with logical functions, which are like math (algebra functions are very similar to the phrase posted). Logic itself can be proven.

Yes, logic can be proven, and logic is not math. So what is your point concerning this anyway?

the other comment...
humans are warm blooded animals...

have you personally tested this theory? Have you went to every human to make sure there was not an abnormality?

I don’t have to. If they aren’t warm blooded, they aren’t mammals.

 

[Ken-1122]

so you admit you cannot prove basic astronomical laws. (laws that don't deal with math)? Well that proves my point, because astronomy as I see it is a vilified science. Biology, a hard science, cannot be proven. Anatomy cannot be proven. History cannot be proven. Social behavior cannot be proven. Nearly every single scientific study cannot be proven, and they don't even claim to have that ability. so I think I have made my point sufficiently. Most people have faith in science, that they did it accurately, and without bias and honestly. And they may not have. IT takes faith in them as people. How hard would it be to change dating figures to prove a billions of year old universe, or earth? If you take a dating sample, one says 5,000, one says 50,000 and one says 500,000 years. As most dating techniques have many sample dates, that they arbitrarily choose which one is accurate. So if you have a world view that all science proves an old earth, you will pick the older of the dates, yes? I mean if the actual evidence is the same with all the dates and they were all accurately sampled? Which do you choose? You choose the date that fits the rest of science? And this is what I mean. They think they were being honest, but in fact they let their bias in. The young measurement had as much validity and the older one. The more you study dating techniques the more you realize that if a date is off, they automatically assume it to be error-some.

Here is just a little glimpse of a christian (who is also biased as well) using a dating technique:

"Geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner, part of the RATE research group,7There should be no 14C at all if they really were over a billion years old, yet the radiocarbon lab reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit. Thus they had a radiocarbon ‘age’ far less than a million years! Dr Baumgardner repeated this with six more alluvial diamonds from Namibia, and these had even more radiocarbon."

Diamonds: a creationists best friend - creation.com

I never made claims about astronomical laws, and I never commented on the accuracy of science.
Care to respond concerning what I actually said?

 

[Kylie]

again if you wish to go this route, what chapter of the book in kindergarten do you learn numbers in? The math chapter. You simply cannot win this argument. Notice how none of your colleagues are defending you on this. It is just a bizarre sort of thing to say that numbers especially temperature is not math. If you simply post numbers (that is math even though there is no calculations)

Seems to me that math is learning to USE the numbers. You have to learn the numbers before you can start using them.

Perhaps this is what you are after?

 

[createdtoworship]

I don’t have to. Anybody who knows basic chemistry knows the effect this poison has on the body


No, it's a logical statement about distance.




Yes, logic can be proven, and logic is not math. So what is your point concerning this anyway?


I don’t have to. If they aren’t warm blooded, they aren’t mammals.

My point is that there is actually a sub category of math, called "math logic" and there are whole studies done on this, just search amazon for math logic. The topics are closely related is what I getting at. But even if they were not closely related and had nothing to do with each other, there is a small portion of facts that can be proven (mainly a tenth of one percent). So just because logic can be proven like math, does not mean that 99.99 percent of facts cannot be proven. So this commits the fallacy of a biased sample. To prove my point, you use the band wagon fallacy to prove that cianide is poisonous. But how do you know? You must rely on other's tests. And this is what I mean, you have no first hand studies of the material. And this is why it is unprovable.

 

[Ken-1122]

My point is that there is actually a sub category of math, called "math logic" and there are whole studies done on this, just search amazon for math logic. The topics are closely related is what I getting at. But even if they were not closely related and had nothing to do with each other, there is a small portion of facts that can be proven (mainly a tenth of one percent). So just because logic can be proven like math, does not mean that 99.99 percent of facts cannot be proven. So this commits the fallacy of a biased sample. To prove my point, you use the band wagon fallacy to prove that cianide is poisonous. But how do you know? You must rely on other's tests. And this is what I mean, you have no first hand studies of the material. And this is why it is unprovable.

Remember the analogy I gave about the Chicken that lays golden eggs? If you make a claim that sounds reasonable, it is perfectly reasonable to accept it without empirical evidence. If you make a claim that defies nature, goes against everything mankind has known to be true, it would be foolish to accept it without empirical evidence.
Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. Do you agree?

 

[createdtoworship]

Remember the analogy I gave about the Chicken that lays golden eggs? If you make a claim that sounds reasonable, it is perfectly reasonable to accept it without empirical evidence. If you make a claim that defies nature, goes against everything mankind has known to be true, it would be foolish to accept it without empirical evidence.
Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. Do you agree?

I read it.

but the underlined portion of your comment commits the bandwagon fallacy. If other's believe it is true, it is therefore true, with or without evidence. a hundred years ago, most scientists believed in God, is it therefore true?

 

[createdtoworship]

Seems to me that math is learning to USE the numbers. You have to learn the numbers before you can start using them.

Perhaps this is what you are after?

are you saying that numbers are learned in math class? Numbers are a math subject. You don't learn numbers for example in history class, or in english class. It is a math subject. And surely you know this. My wife is a teacher, and I asked her, and she was laughing at it. Logic itself dictates that if one were to learn numbers it would be more appropriate to put it in a math section of a class, rather than an english section.

 

[Ken-1122]

I read it.

but the underlined portion of your comment commits the bandwagon fallacy. If other's believe it is true, it is therefore true, with or without evidence. a hundred years ago, most scientists believed in God, is it therefore true?

It appears you missed my point. My comment was not about whether it was true or not, my comment was about when it is reasonable to INVESTIGATE whether something is true or not.

 

[createdtoworship]

It appears you missed my point. My comment was not about whether it was true or not, my comment was about when it is reasonable to INVESTIGATE whether something is true or not.

again that is committing the band wagon fallacy. You are assuming something does not need investigation. You are having faith in the said authority without personally proving that subject yourself.

 

[Ken-1122]

again that is committing the band wagon fallacy. You are assuming something does not need investigation. You are having faith in the said authority without personally proving that subject yourself.

It is literally impossible to extensively investigate every single claim in life, trying to do so you would never get anything done. We have no choice but to take some things at face value. Some things are reasonably to take at face value, others are not. Do you agree?

 

[createdtoworship]

It is literally impossible to extensively investigate every single claim in life, trying to do so you would never get anything done. We have no choice but to take some things at face value. Some things are reasonably to take at face value, others are not. Do you agree?

it's ok to take things at face value, but not without faith.

 

[Ken-1122]

it's ok to take things at face value, but not without faith.

It all depends on how you define faith. The way I define it, I take nothing at face value due to faith.

 

[createdtoworship]

It all depends on how you define faith. The way I define it, I take nothing at face value due to faith.

sir like I said if you cannot prove something, you are taking their word for it (scientists and external evidences), but if you have not objectively verified the claims yourself, then it is not proven to yourself. You basically have faith in the experts, which is faith none the less.

 

[Ken-1122]

sir like I said if you cannot prove something, you are taking their word for it (scientists and external evidences), but if you have not objectively verified the claims yourself, then it is not proven to yourself. You basically have faith in the experts, which is faith none the less.

Faith is a belief that is not based on reason or logic. If we go back to my previous analogy, to believe a chicken will lay 2-3 eggs per day is perfectly reasonable and logical so it would not take the leap of faith to believe it.