Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I strangely agree with much of what you said Ken. So where is the issue with my original post asking an Atheist reading to put something on the table?

As far as putting something on the table, I assume this means claiming the possibility of something outside of what physical evidence leads you to believe. If this is not what you meant, please explain what you mean. If this is what you meant, the reason I don’t do this is because I have no reason to assume the possibility of something unless I can see evidence that leads me in that direction.

The reason I require physical evidence is because the physical reality is the only reality I am capable of experiencing; I can’t experience the spiritual world, or whatever other types of worlds people might claim, so I have no reason to assume they exist. So if I am going to put something on the table, it would probably be something akin to what science puts on the table; claims where physical evidence leads you.

Ken

In response to what I mean, take a read of my post before my last one to you.

Kenny wrote:The reason I require physical evidence is because the physical reality is the only reality I am capable of experiencing; I can’t experience the spiritual world, or whatever other types of worlds people might claim, so I have no reason to assume they exist. So if I am going to put something on the table, it would probably be something akin to what science puts on the table; claims where physical evidence leads you.

These statements of yours are precisely why things like "rape" and "genocide" are alright. They're neither physically wrong, nor scientifically wrong.

Moral rightness or wrongness has no physical or scientific reality, and therefore moral reality ought to be rejected...

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I strangely agree with much of what you said Ken. So where is the issue with my original post asking an Atheist reading to put something on the table?

As far as putting something on the table, I assume this means claiming the possibility of something outside of what physical evidence leads you to believe. If this is not what you meant, please explain what you mean. If this is what you meant, the reason I don’t do this is because I have no reason to assume the possibility of something unless I can see evidence that leads me in that direction.

The reason I require physical evidence is because the physical reality is the only reality I am capable of experiencing; I can’t experience the spiritual world, or whatever other types of worlds people might claim, so I have no reason to assume they exist. So if I am going to put something on the table, it would probably be something akin to what science puts on the table; claims where physical evidence leads you.

Ken

In response to what I mean, take a read of my post before my last one to you.

If I understand you correctly, when you say making sure the pieces of the puzzle fit correctly, it is another way of saying “to go where the evidence leads you” If the pieces of the puzzle don’t fit, and the picture is garbled up, that is evident that something is wrong; that something doesn’t fit right.

For me, my puzzle would be limited to the physical world. To assume something outside that which is physical would cause my picture to become garbled up and the pieces to my puzzle won’t fit right.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I strangely agree with much of what you said Ken. So where is the issue with my original post asking an Atheist reading to put something on the table?

As far as putting something on the table, I assume this means claiming the possibility of something outside of what physical evidence leads you to believe. If this is not what you meant, please explain what you mean. If this is what you meant, the reason I don’t do this is because I have no reason to assume the possibility of something unless I can see evidence that leads me in that direction.

The reason I require physical evidence is because the physical reality is the only reality I am capable of experiencing; I can’t experience the spiritual world, or whatever other types of worlds people might claim, so I have no reason to assume they exist. So if I am going to put something on the table, it would probably be something akin to what science puts on the table; claims where physical evidence leads you.

Ken

In response to what I mean, take a read of my post before my last one to you.

If I understand you correctly, when you say making sure the pieces of the puzzle fit correctly, it is another way of saying “to go where the evidence leads you” If the pieces of the puzzle don’t fit, and the picture is garbled up, that is evident that something is wrong; that something doesn’t fit right.

For me, my puzzle would be limited to the physical world. To assume something outside that which is physical would cause my picture to become garbled up and the pieces to my puzzle won’t fit right.

Ken

Well it does seem that I can agree with you again.

Many of us here have seen how garbled your puzzle pieces get in other threads when you try to account for things that seem to exist outside of what is physical.

Nothing immoral or wrong about that though eh? Yes, you know know what I'm talking about.

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:The reason I require physical evidence is because the physical reality is the only reality I am capable of experiencing; I can’t experience the spiritual world, or whatever other types of worlds people might claim, so I have no reason to assume they exist. So if I am going to put something on the table, it would probably be something akin to what science puts on the table; claims where physical evidence leads you.

These statements of yours are precisely why things like "rape" and "genocide" are alright. They're neither physically wrong, nor scientifically wrong.

Moral rightness or wrongness has no physical or scientific reality, and therefore moral reality ought to be rejected...

Rape an Genocide are immoral actions. Physical is aboutthe material world, and science is the study of things in the material world. To use matter or science to address morality would be akin to expecting a scientist to address art.
(I know it's a bad analogy, but that is the only one I can think of in the short amount of time i have to respond)

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I strangely agree with much of what you said Ken. So where is the issue with my original post asking an Atheist reading to put something on the table?

As far as putting something on the table, I assume this means claiming the possibility of something outside of what physical evidence leads you to believe. If this is not what you meant, please explain what you mean. If this is what you meant, the reason I don’t do this is because I have no reason to assume the possibility of something unless I can see evidence that leads me in that direction.

The reason I require physical evidence is because the physical reality is the only reality I am capable of experiencing; I can’t experience the spiritual world, or whatever other types of worlds people might claim, so I have no reason to assume they exist. So if I am going to put something on the table, it would probably be something akin to what science puts on the table; claims where physical evidence leads you.

Ken

In response to what I mean, take a read of my post before my last one to you.

If I understand you correctly, when you say making sure the pieces of the puzzle fit correctly, it is another way of saying “to go where the evidence leads you” If the pieces of the puzzle don’t fit, and the picture is garbled up, that is evident that something is wrong; that something doesn’t fit right.

For me, my puzzle would be limited to the physical world. To assume something outside that which is physical would cause my picture to become garbled up and the pieces to my puzzle won’t fit right.

Ken

Well it does seem that I can agree with you again.

Many of us here have seen how garbled your puzzle pieces get in other threads when you try to account for things that seem to exist outside of what is physical.

Nothing immoral or wrong about that though eh? Yes, you know know what I'm talking about.

Wow! you agreed with me twice in a 24 hr period? Maybe I should go out and buy a lottery ticket or something (LOL)

As far as my responses appearing garbled; it is often difficult to answer a question under the assumption that something you do not believe to be true; is true.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:The reason I require physical evidence is because the physical reality is the only reality I am capable of experiencing; I can’t experience the spiritual world, or whatever other types of worlds people might claim, so I have no reason to assume they exist. So if I am going to put something on the table, it would probably be something akin to what science puts on the table; claims where physical evidence leads you.

These statements of yours are precisely why things like "rape" and "genocide" are alright. They're neither physically wrong, nor scientifically wrong.

Moral rightness or wrongness has no physical or scientific reality, and therefore moral reality ought to be rejected...

Rape an Genocide are immoral actions. Physical is aboutthe material world, and science is the study of things in the material world. To use matter or science to address morality would be akin to expecting a scientist to address art.
(I know it's a bad analogy, but that is the only one I can think of in the short amount of time i have to respond)

Ken

Rape and genocide aren't immoral at all, if science and the physical world are all that are on the table to you. In fact, I'll here argue that such actions are actually moral using science.

Scientifically rape isn't immoral because it enables one to pass on their genes if for example they're either undesirable or mutual consent is not possible. Rape is actually a biological response to one wanting to survive and live on where such may otherwise be withheld due to emotions.

There is nothing wrong with male ducks or geese forcing copulation when they do. Even if the female doesn't want such, this is just the way things work. The fact we have evolved strong feelings about morality, should not subtract from the more primary directive of evolution which is about survival and the fittest passing on their genes.

Rape is therefore I argue based upon scientific grounds, ultimately a moral response to the immoral act of being denied the ability to fulfill one's primary directive to survive and pass on their genes.

Re: Genecide, this too can be aliked to natural selection in peppered moths or "Darwin's" finches. Those who are less strong and adapted to their environment will die out, and the stronger -- those able to adapt and better fit in with their environmental surroundings -- will live on and flourish.

With us humans, we've evolved to be social creatures similar to apes and monkeys, dolphins, and the like. So in additional to environmental adaptions, we also have social adaptation between "groups" of different societies. The largest society is perhaps what we call a nation. Within a nation though there are many different sub-groups.

Genocide is about annihilating one social group out such as an entire nation or ethnic group. This results in less competition in one way or another for the conquering social group. The fittest will win, conquer and gain more wealth and flourish. If one nation is suffering poverty, then pillaging or wiping out a neighboring nation is a viable recourse if they're strong enough to do so.

Therefore, based upon science with how nature works and survival of the fittest, genocide also isn't immoral, but rather a very moral response in a world which is quite harsh and where we must compete in order to live on and further ourselves.

Our evolved "feelings" that such is somehow wrong, this ought to be usurped by the higher objective of the survival of one's own social group. This after all is what the world is all about -- survival in some way or another. It's a cruel and cold world and "moral" feelings are just an oddity that should be discarded.

So here I've offered what I feel are very powerful scientific arguments that rape and genocide are in fact correct and moral responses. As someone who only believes in what is physical and science-based, can you offer something to counter these arguments to support your statement that "rape and genocide are immoral actions"?

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:The reason I require physical evidence is because the physical reality is the only reality I am capable of experiencing; I can’t experience the spiritual world, or whatever other types of worlds people might claim, so I have no reason to assume they exist. So if I am going to put something on the table, it would probably be something akin to what science puts on the table; claims where physical evidence leads you.

These statements of yours are precisely why things like "rape" and "genocide" are alright. They're neither physically wrong, nor scientifically wrong.

Moral rightness or wrongness has no physical or scientific reality, and therefore moral reality ought to be rejected...

Rape an Genocide are immoral actions. Physical is aboutthe material world, and science is the study of things in the material world. To use matter or science to address morality would be akin to expecting a scientist to address art.
(I know it's a bad analogy, but that is the only one I can think of in the short amount of time i have to respond)

Ken

Rape and genocide aren't immoral at all, if science and the physical world are all that are on the table to you. In fact, I'll here argue that such actions are actually moral using science.

Scientifically rape isn't immoral because it enables one to pass on their genes if for example they're either undesirable or mutual consent is not possible. Rape is actually a biological response to one wanting to survive and live on where such may otherwise be withheld due to emotions.

There is nothing wrong with male ducks or geese forcing copulation when they do. Even if the female doesn't want such, this is just the way things work. The fact we have evolved strong feelings about morality, should not subtract from the more primary directive of evolution which is about survival and the fittest passing on their genes.

Rape is therefore I argue based upon scientific grounds, ultimately a moral response to the immoral act of being denied the ability to fulfill one's primary directive to survive and pass on their genes.

Re: Genecide, this too can be aliked to natural selection in peppered moths or "Darwin's" finches. Those who are less strong and adapted to their environment will die out, and the stronger -- those able to adapt and better fit in with their environmental surroundings -- will live on and flourish.

With us humans, we've evolved to be social creatures similar to apes and monkeys, dolphins, and the like. So in additional to environmental adaptions, we also have social adaptation between "groups" of different societies. The largest society is perhaps what we call a nation. Within a nation though there are many different sub-groups.

Genocide is about annihilating one social group out such as an entire nation or ethnic group. This results in less competition in one way or another for the conquering social group. The fittest will win, conquer and gain more wealth and flourish. If one nation is suffering poverty, then pillaging or wiping out a neighboring nation is a viable recourse if they're strong enough to do so.

Therefore, based upon science with how nature works and survival of the fittest, genocide also isn't immoral, but rather a very moral response in a world which is quite harsh and where we must compete in order to live on and further ourselves.

Our evolved "feelings" that such is somehow wrong, this ought to be usurped by the higher objective of the survival of one's own social group. This after all is what the world is all about -- survival in some way or another. It's a cruel and cold world and "moral" feelings are just an oddity that should be discarded.

So here I've offered what I feel are very powerful scientific arguments that rape and genocide are in fact correct and moral responses. As someone who only believes in what is physical and science-based, can you offer something to counter these arguments to support your statement that "rape and genocide are immoral actions"?

Okay I see where you are getting at. Let me rephrase. What I put on the table depends upon what you wish to talk about. I can talk about art, music, cars, weightlifting, sports, science, morality, and a host of other things. Obviously if you wish to discuss morality, I will leave science off the table and discuss morality. Obviously I believe rape and genocide are wrong because it harms people and we are not supposed to behave like those beasts you mentioned; we are better than that.

Ken

Ken wrote:Okay I see where you are getting at. Let me rephrase. What I put on the table depends upon what you wish to talk about. I can talk about art, music, cars, weightlifting, sports, science, morality, and a host of other things. Obviously if you wish to discuss morality, I will leave science off the table and discuss morality. Obviously I believe rape and genocide are wrong because it harms people and we are not supposed to behave like those beasts you mentioned; we are better than that.

Why leave science off the table? It's your only recourse to justify any sort of valid morality if the only reality that you believe in is physical reality and evidence provided via science.

You and others (religious folk or zealots perhaps?) might think we're better than beasts, but we're just like any other biological life form really. If we're actually all determined products of nature then we're no better than any other life form -- just different.

Maybe your own perception of humans possessing higher intelligence makes you think we're more than mere beasts? Or perhaps it's more the case that you can't fully shake free from all "religious" thinking? I'm really puzzled why you believe that we (human beings) ought not behave like beasts?

As for my last post, it was all based on science. Atheists like Lawrance Krauss (friend to Dawkins) also believe many morals are common sense, and while not all -- many morals can be drawn from science. For example, where many religions believe homosexual sex is morally wrong scientific observation shows us it is quite natural and so alright. So I'm not sure why you are so readily placing science aside in any discussion of morality.

Finally, it doesn't make sense why you think there is any real morality and what one ought and ought not to do, especially if you discard the very things (science and empiricism) that you believe to are required for real proof. To quote you earlier: "The reason I require physical evidence is because the physical reality is the only reality I am capable of experiencing. I can’t experience the spiritual world, or whatever other types of worlds people might claim, so I have no reason to assume they exist."

So if you place science aside to discuss morality, and then in your next breath say that "we ought to not act like beasts" -- how exactly are you justifying this statement? This says to me that you MUST believe in the reality of something apart from what is physical or gained via scientific means? Why ought we not behave like beasts?

In light of the very scientific arguments I provided in my previous post, it seems to me like you're trying to retreat into some airy-fairy "spiritual" beliefs when you say we ought not behave like beasts. But in your own very words, you don't believe such things exists. Forgive me if I call you a closet Theist.

Ken smuggles in a biblical worldview and denies it in the same breath. this is getting old.
Humans OUGHT to.....
Better....
These are all terms that presume OBJECTIVE MORALS.

Kurieuo
Why leave science off the table? It's your only recourse to justify any sort of valid morality if the only reality that you believe in is physical reality and evidence provided via science.


Ken
I believe there are 2 types of existence; that which exists in reality and that which only exists in your head. Math exists in your head; the memories of our loved ones exist in our head. Thoughts, beliefs, ideas, and yes morality exist in our heads they have no physical existence. A good way of determining if something is real or not is to ignore it; if it is still there it has an actual existence; if it goes away, it only existed in your head. If you ignore morality, it goes away; if you ignore that which is studied by science; it will remain there. Now if you want to talk about something that only exists in your head; like beliefs, thoughts, ideas, and yes even morality; then I will only put stuff on the table that address those specific ideas which would include leaving science off the table because science is about that which has an actual existence; not about that stuff that only lives in your head.

Kurieuo
You and others (religious folk or zealots perhaps?) might think we're better than beasts, but we're just like any other biological life form really. If we're actually all determined products of nature then we're no better than any other life form -- just different.

Ken
I can respect your point of view, but I totally disagree with it.


Kurieuo
Maybe your own perception of humans possessing higher intelligence makes you think we're more than mere beasts? Or perhaps it's more the case that you can't fully shake free from all "religious" thinking? I'm really puzzled why you believe that we (human beings) ought not behave like beasts?


Ken
Humm….. I’m actually quite puzzled as to why you think we should!


Kurieuo
As for my last post, it was all based on science. Atheists like Lawrance Krauss (friend to Dawkins) also believe many morals are common sense, and while not all -- many morals can be drawn from science. For example, where many religions believe homosexual sex is morally wrong scientific observation shows us it is quite natural and so alright. So I'm not sure why you are so readily placing science aside in any discussion of morality.

Finally, it doesn't make sense why you think there is any real morality and what one ought and ought not to do, especially if you discard the very things (science and empiricism) that you believe to are required for real proof. To quote you earlier: "The reason I require physical evidence is because the physical reality is the only reality I am capable of experiencing. I can’t experience the spiritual world, or whatever other types of worlds people might claim, so I have no reason to assume they exist."

So if you place science aside to discuss morality, and then in your next breath say that "we ought to not act like beasts" -- how exactly are you justifying this statement? This says to me that you MUST believe in the reality of something apart from what is physical or gained via scientific means? Why ought we not behave like beasts?

Ken
I believe in your bible, Proverbs says “in all thy getting, get understanding” so in an attempt to understand each other; I think a quick summary of my definition of morality is in order.

I believe morality is a result of
*empathy
*Understanding the consequences of actions
*balancing the pro’s and con’s of certain types of behavior and how they affect your neighbor,
*starting from the position that well-being of your neighbor is good and suffering of your neighbor is bad

Animals may employ a few of these traits, but not all of them; and when they do employ a few of these traits they do not employ them to the extent that humans do. That is why I consider humans superior to animals. That is why science is left off the table when discussing morality.


Kurieuo
In light of the very scientific arguments I provided in my previous post, it seems to me like you're trying to retreat into some airy-fairy "spiritual" beliefs when you say we ought not behave like beasts. But in your own very words, you don't believe such things exists.


Ken
You are right that I do not believe in the spiritual world, and I believe morality is a human construct.
I would go as far as saying that any human who is unable to employ the previously mentioned traits on his own, but must go to a perceived authority to receive instructions on how to behave this way, is not being moral, but is only being obedient.

Any person who has to receive instructions from God in order to be:
-Empathetic
-Understand the consequences of his actions
-Balance the pro’s and con’s of his actions and how they affect others
-and start from the position that wel-being of your neighbor is good and suffering of your neighbor is bad

Is not a moral person; his God is moral. He is nothing more than an immoral person who is good at following instructions. I am better than that! And I am sure you are as well; weather you realize it or not.


Kurieuo
Forgive me if I call you a closet Theist.


Ken
I forgive you; just don’t let it happen again! (LOL)

jlay wrote:Ken smuggles in a biblical worldview and denies it in the same breath. this is getting old.
Humans OUGHT to.....
Better....
These are all terms that presume OBJECTIVE MORALS.

It is a mistake to assume morality can only come from the bible

Ken

Ken,

You are welcome to argue for objective morality sans creator. Please elaborate.
joel

jlay wrote:Ken,

You are welcome to argue for objective morality sans creator. Please elaborate.
joel

I don't understand what you are talking about, I did not make a case for objective morality; as a matter of fact, I don't even believe morality is objective; I believe it is subjective. From my experience it is usually the Christian who claims the morality is objective; something I disagree with

Ken

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote:Ken,

You are welcome to argue for objective morality sans creator. Please elaborate.
joel

I don't understand what you are talking about, I did not make a case for objective morality; as a matter of fact, I don't even believe morality is objective; I believe it is subjective. From my experience it is usually the Christian who claims the morality is objective; something I disagree with

Ken

You disagree with it but you live by its tenets. If you want to be intellectually honest enough to carry that position to its logical, deterministic conclusion then you must renounce all language of morality (objective or otherwise), of right and wrong, of love, dignity, personhood, etc etc. Basically you are a collection of atoms and molecules, a product of a blind evolutionary process obeying the laws of chemistry, biology, and physics until such laws spit you out in favor of another species. You are nothing more that a material object that has no more self-worth (whatever that means) than a cockroach or a rock. If, and that's a big IF, you want to be intellectually honest that is. But you won't, will you? You will live your life content in the knowledge that you can stand in moral judgement when it suits you while denying the very source that granted you its benefits.

Please, enough of this farce.