Evidence for God from Science

Hortator wrote:I'm sure Newton and Einstein had the same mentality of "It cannot be known" and "It's impossible to figure out" when they were creating great achievements.

Physicists know that there is an "order" to things, that is why water boils at 100 C and freezes at 0 C, all things being equal.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Hortator wrote:I'm sure Newton and Einstein had the same mentality of "It cannot be known" and "It's impossible to figure out" when they were creating great achievements.

Physicists know that there is an "order" to things, that is why water boils at 100 C and freezes at 0 C, all things being equal.

But I'm a nihilist

Checkmate

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Philip wrote:
Ken, how do you define what you consider to be "wrong?"

Right and wrong are judgment calls people make about actions they see around them

Ok, but what do people base those calls on?

Personal opinion.

K

Based on what?

Based on what makes sense to me.

Ken

Hortator wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Hortator wrote:I'm sure Newton and Einstein had the same mentality of "It cannot be known" and "It's impossible to figure out" when they were creating great achievements.

Physicists know that there is an "order" to things, that is why water boils at 100 C and freezes at 0 C, all things being equal.

But I'm a nihilist

Checkmate

What does you being a nihilist have to do with Newton and Einstein when they were creating great achievements?

Ken

Hortator wrote:I'm sure Newton and Einstein had the same mentality of "It cannot be known" and "It's impossible to figure out" when they were creating great achievements.

Who are you referring to?

K

Philip: Ken, how do you define what you consider to be "wrong?"

Ken: Right and wrong are judgment calls people make about actions they see around them

OK, then, what are we to do when one person does something they see as perfectly fine and desirous, and yet you perceive their actions as having caused you a great wrong? How should we, as a society, mitigate that - because it would seem an impasse between two people. It would appear that you agree that without some God and His standards, that there really is no morality other than whatever each person considers it to be. With your view, there is no definitive right or wrong. All those loonies protesting whatever thing - they've deluded themselves that there is some definitive moral code. Right?

Philip: Ken, how do you define what you consider to be "wrong?"

Ken: Right and wrong are judgment calls people make about actions they see around them

Philip wrote:OK, then, what are we to do when one person does something they see as perfectly fine and desirous, and yet you perceive their actions as having caused you a great wrong?

That’s what laws are for. Laws are objective. How would you solve this problem with objective morality?

Philip wrote:How should we, as a society, mitigate that - because it would seem an impasse between two people.

Society will pass a law and if what the person did against me is illegal, I have the law on my side. If what he did is not illegal; then I have no options at all.

Philip wrote:It would appear that you agree that without some God and His standards, that there really is no morality other than whatever each person considers it to be.

True. Now how is this different if we assume morality is objective? Under objective morality, moral standards is what your God considers it to be; but then somebody who worships a different God will say it is what HIS God considers it to be. So how is your situation different?

Philip wrote:With your view, there is no definitive right or wrong.

The same with your view. Yeah you will say morality is based on Gods word, but someone else will say it is based on his deities word. How is that different than me saying it is based on what I say is right, then someone else saying it is based on what they say is right?

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote: Right and wrong are judgment calls people make about actions they see around them

Ok, but what do people base those calls on?

Personal opinion.

K

Based on what?

Based on what makes sense to me.

Ken

Based on what?

That’s what laws are for. Laws are objective.

Two things:
Where did you get the notion that laws are objective?
And if they are, what makes them so?

This is the definition of objective law by the way:

It means that the Reasonable Person could read and understand it just from that reading alone, in conjunction with what it means to be a Reasonable Person, and clearly see what is protected, allowed, compelled, or forbidden under that law. This does not mean that the law is necessarily just, only that it can be understood by a process of objective reasoning. The same one interpretation would then hold for everyone, and so all men could act with that interpretation in mind accordingly.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: Ok, but what do people base those calls on?

Personal opinion.

K

Based on what?

Based on what makes sense to me.

Ken

Based on what?

I've already answered that question. What more are you looking for?

That’s what laws are for. Laws are objective.

PaulSacramento wrote: Two things:
Where did you get the notion that laws are objective?

The interpretation of laws are objective. (or at least it should be)

PaulSacramento wrote: And if they are, what makes them so?

Objective means based on fact, not left up to interpretation or personal feelings. The reason it is against the law to murder, rape, etc. is because there is a law that address those actions, and they are deemed illegal.

PaulSacramento wrote: This is the definition of objective law by the way:

It means that the Reasonable Person could read and understand it just from that reading alone, in conjunction with what it means to be a Reasonable Person, and clearly see what is protected, allowed, compelled, or forbidden under that law. This does not mean that the law is necessarily just, only that it can be understood by a process of objective reasoning. The same one interpretation would then hold for everyone, and so all men could act with that interpretation in mind accordingly.

[/quote]

Do you have a problem with that definition?

Ken

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=195
@Philip Thanks for the comments.

And one cannot say, in a purely materialistic world, that there is any one CORRECT morality - not if all morality simply evolved. In a purely materialistic universe, who can authoritatively assert that the predator murderer / cannibal's morality is any better or worse than the morality of a peace-loving vegetarian. Kill a man, kill a cow - in a purely materialist world - not one bit of difference. In such a world, there is NO good or bad - there simply IS! There are outcomes - with winners and losers. At some point, neither would continue to exist - unequal in life, but equal in the end. Ruthless, brutal, but simply the way things are - that's the materialist universe, of which all moral debates are rather silly!

Well, the question is how you define morality. You ask for " one CORRECT morality" that is the same everywhere, that is an absolute moral. I agree with you that it is not possible to have an absolute moral in a materialistic/naturalistic world (even if there are lot of philosophers that don't agree). But you also seem to assume that if there is no absolute morality then there is no morality at all. Then you don't use the usual definition of morality. Merriam-Wester says " Morality: a doctrine or system of moral conduct ". I wrote " Morality is a set of rules that governs interindividual interactions." It's not at all "silly" to discuss morality even if there is no absolute morality. Different cultures have different moral systems. They are similar in many respects because of our common inherited morality developed through evolution but different because of different environments and histories.

The idea that morality is passed on because it has mutual societal benefits of peace and harmony, cooperation - really, while there are benefits in that approach, it's merely a result of whatever numbers of people agree with that approach, and that have the individual / collective ability to pursue it.

What passes on the morality of a group or society is how successful the group is when competing with other groups. If the group wins over other groups their code of morality will spread too and their concepts of right and wrong will take over. If a group sustains a morality that makes is praiseworthy to fight and sacrifice ones life the group has a greater chance to survive than if everybody just wants to sing and laugh.

But for many, especially those in positions of great power and the ability to dominate others, take a different approach - which is the Darwinian survival of the fittest - that the fittest take whatever they are able to, because it so suits their motives and desires.

It seems that you don't understand the evolution theory. Darwinian survival of the fittest is not about personal power and gain, it is about how many descendants you get and how they survive and how many descendants they get etc. Dawkins has coined the expression The selfish gene; that explains what's important.

Nils

PS I haven't lot of spare time and will not always respond rapidly but some day I will answer your questions that started this thread.

PPS Is there a spelling check and how do I find it?

Nils: It seems that you don't understand the evolution theory. Darwinian survival of the fittest is not about personal power and gain, it is about how many descendants you get and how they survive and how many descendants they get etc.

Don't make assumptions about what people do or don't know. Sure, survival of the fittest is about successfully passing along your genes - but along with that, individually, as part of a species collectively doing so, is the individual ability to find prey and also avoid becoming it. Those that get eaten, don't do so well with their breeding plans. Not to mention, my focus was, in a purely natural world, there is NO morality - it's not even a question. Even in the animal kingdom today, there is no morality.

The problem with the superficial view of Darwinian evolution is that most people that support it are not willing to take it to its natural conclusion BUT others are.
Survival of the fittest may only mean that the must suitable traits are passed on, BUT don't ever think for a moment that it stops here in the eyes of some.

Kenny wrote:

Hortator wrote:I'm sure Newton and Einstein had the same mentality of "It cannot be known" and "It's impossible to figure out" when they were creating great achievements.

Who are you referring to?

K

You're no fun.