Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo: Are humans above the natural order? In other words, can/do we transcend nature...?
Kenny: No. I don't believe anything goes beyond nature.
Kurieuo: Is it wrong for us to deplete the Earth of its natural resources and send species extinct?
Kenny: Of course context must be taken into consideration; but on it's most basic level, I would say such action is wrong and foolish.
Kurieuo: Would it be a bad thing if all of humanity were wiped out?
Kenny: Yes

By bad, do you mean morally bad/unacceptable?

Kurieuo wrote:

Kurieuo: Are humans above the natural order? In other words, can/do we transcend nature...?
Kenny: No. I don't believe anything goes beyond nature.
Kurieuo: Is it wrong for us to deplete the Earth of its natural resources and send species extinct?
Kenny: Of course context must be taken into consideration; but on it's most basic level, I would say such action is wrong and foolish.
Kurieuo: Would it be a bad thing if all of humanity were wiped out?
Kenny: Yes

By bad, do you mean morally bad/unacceptable?

I think I understand where you are getting at. Even though I may not agree, you seem to be suggesting each question has a correct answer; rather than one answer fits all questions, and dismiss the idea that some questions may have lots of different answers each of them equal. Is this correct?

Ken

No, not really getting at that.
Really more interested in your personal feelings on the questions.
To see whether the responses cohere with each other.

Almost done though. There's just one more follow up question after the last.

Kurieuo wrote:No, not really getting at that.
Really more interested in your personal feelings on the questions.
To see whether the responses cohere with each other.

Almost done though. There's just one more follow up question after the last.

Okay. My personal feelings are it would be morally bad/unacceptable to wipe all humans off the face of the Earth.

Ken

I said one more question, but two in one go...

Is it morally wrong for a lion to eat its prey, even if it causes a species to go extinct?
And can nature be accountable for any moral wrong?

Kurieuo wrote:I said one more question, but two in one go...

Is it morally wrong for a lion to eat its prey, even if it causes a species to go extinct?
And can nature be accountable for any moral wrong?

No. Morality only applies to humans

Ken

Thanks Ken.

Reflect for a moment upon your beliefs in our short exchange here:

Kurieuo: Are humans above the natural order? In other words, can/do we transcend nature...?
Kenny: No. I don't believe anything goes beyond nature.

Kurieuo: Is it wrong for us to deplete the Earth of its natural resources and send species extinct?
Kenny: Of course context must be taken into consideration; but on it's most basic level, I would say such action is wrong and foolish.

Kurieuo: Would it be a bad thing if all of humanity were wiped out?
Kenny: Yes

Kurieuo: By bad, do you mean morally bad/unacceptable?
Kenny: Okay. My personal feelings are it would be morally bad/unacceptable to wipe all humans off the face of the Earth.

Kurieuo: Is it morally wrong for a lion to eat its prey, even if it causes a species to go extinct? And can nature be accountable for any moral wrong?
Kenny:: No. Morality only applies to humans

I certainly did not know how you were going to respond.

But, there does seem to be an inconsistency that I'd like your further thoughts on.
That is, unless we transcend nature, then how can be accountable for any moral wrong?

It seems to me that you either have let go of your first response that we don't transcend nature (since nature can't be accountable for moral wrong),
or let go of your last response that morality applies to humans (since we don't transcend nature any more than say a lion).

I'd be interested in your thoughts here.

Kurieuo wrote:Thanks Ken.

Reflect for a moment upon your beliefs in our short exchange here:

Kurieuo: Are humans above the natural order? In other words, can/do we transcend nature...?
Kenny: No. I don't believe anything goes beyond nature.

Kurieuo: Is it wrong for us to deplete the Earth of its natural resources and send species extinct?
Kenny: Of course context must be taken into consideration; but on it's most basic level, I would say such action is wrong and foolish.

Kurieuo: Would it be a bad thing if all of humanity were wiped out?
Kenny: Yes

Kurieuo: By bad, do you mean morally bad/unacceptable?
Kenny: Okay. My personal feelings are it would be morally bad/unacceptable to wipe all humans off the face of the Earth.

Kurieuo: Is it morally wrong for a lion to eat its prey, even if it causes a species to go extinct? And can nature be accountable for any moral wrong?
Kenny:: No. Morality only applies to humans

I certainly did not know how you were going to respond.

But, there does seem to be an inconsistency that I'd like your further thoughts on.
That is, unless we transcend nature, then how can be accountable for any moral wrong?

I don't understand why you assume living within the parameters of nature makes us irresponsible for our actions. Please explain

Kurieuo wrote: It seems to me that you either have let go of your first response that we don't transcend nature (since nature can't be accountable for moral wrong),
or let go of your last response that morality applies to humans (since we don't transcend nature any more than say a lion).

I'd be interested in your thoughts here.

I wouldn't say we cannot transcend nature any more than a lion; we can build machines that allow us to temporarily defy gravity better than a lion; (airplane vs a lion jumping) I can defy my natural instincts of having sex with the pretty girl in the grocery store because to do so would be rape, etc. perhaps I am misunderstanding you; but it seems to me all creatures can transcend nature on a temporary basis; humans are just better at it than everything else, but I don't see how this makes us irresponsible for our actions

Ken

Ahh K. You are clearly all over it, clever cookie
But Kenny is not following through with an honest argument....

Kenny is equivocating.

melanie wrote:Ahh K. You are clearly all over it, clever cookie
But Kenny is not following through with an honest argument....

What type of reply would you consider to be an "honest argument"?

Ken

My intention was not to trap Kenny. I did not know how he would respond really.
But, I'm sure it is plain to people the issue my questions revealed. It's up to Kenny how he attempts to resolve it.
We all hold inconsistent beliefs. I always appreciate when someone shines the light on mine because then I can fix them.

@Kenny, if we can't transcend nature more than a lion, than there is nothing wrong with us just following Nature's role for us.
It evolved us to be the dominant species, at least during this period. In the past dinosaurs roamed and reigned before it annihilated them.
What is next? Nature probably has us all figured out that we're too intelligent for our own good, and will one day blow ourselves all up and take the rest of the planet with us? (not that "Nature" is personal, but just a manner of speaking)
So.... it doesn't care. There is nothing wrong with such things. Nature will just start out all over again like it did with dinosaurs when a comet or whatever happened hit the Earth.

What happens when you burn old shrubbery and bushes in a rural area or forest?
New life flourishes and old life re-grows. It's could actually a good thing as far as life is concerned.
So, we would just be fulfilling our nature-given role and destiny in making species go extinct and probably even destroying ourselves.

As such, there is nothing wrong if we send this or that species extinct really.
Just because we're sapient and get all emotional "oh no, we can't let that happen, "that would make me sad", "I don't want to die", etc...
Well in the natural world, such doesn't give a damn. As Freud argued the world is a harsh and cruel world. That is nature!

Freud reasons that is why people came up with a "Father" god because we need comfort in such a horrible world.
Any belief of nature's harshness or cruelty (whether delivered through humanity, a comet hitting Earth, a lion or something else) being "bad", is just your own form of "Father" god.
If the dinosaurs were not wiped out, well we may not have been here today. If today's species and even us don't die out, well nature won't be able to keep doing what it apparently does best -- making new life flourish from the ashes.
So I say to the Naturalist, just get over any sense of wrong and right. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with us fulfilling what nature intended of us in evolving us into the most powerful and intelligent species on earth, however that plays out.

I've been down a similar road to Kenny in the never ending morality thread department. One would be as well attempting to refute theism as that which extends from belief in it, in this case the moral lawgiver. If the Abrahamic God is evident objective morality follows, it's a big if.

Kurieuo wrote:My intention was not to trap Kenny. I did not know how he would respond really.
But, I'm sure it is plain to people the issue my questions revealed. It's up to Kenny how he attempts to resolve it.
We all hold inconsistent beliefs. I always appreciate when someone shines the light on mine because then I can fix them.

@Kenny, if we can't transcend nature more than a lion, than there is nothing wrong with us just following Nature's role for us.
It evolved us to be the dominant species, at least during this period. In the past dinosaurs roamed and reigned before it annihilated them.
What is next? Nature probably has us all figured out that we're too intelligent for our own good, and will one day blow ourselves all up and take the rest of the planet with us? (not that "Nature" is personal, but just a manner of speaking)
So.... it doesn't care. There is nothing wrong with such things. Nature will just start out all over again like it did with dinosaurs when a comet or whatever happened hit the Earth.

We obviously have a misunderstanding here. When you asked “do humans transcend Nature, I thought you meant are humans above nature, meaning nature has no effect on us; sorta like God. I am sure any Christian will agree gravity, momentum, and other laws of nature aren’t going have any effect on God because he is above all of that.

Obviously mankind is affected by nature; weather it be laws of nature like gravity, momentum, or centrifugal force, Natural disasters like earth quakes or hurricanes, or anything else associate with nature.

Obviously you meant something totally different because it would be foolish to claim that because we are affected by gravity we shouldn’t be responsible for our actions. I know you would never make such a claim. So please explain what you meant when you asked if humans transcend nature. Provide an example of something transcending nature.

Ken

Ken, thanks for the clarification.
So then, you would say that we do transcend nature...
in particular, that morality is something that goes beyond nature?