Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My Beliefs- GDR
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 938 of 1324 (704691)
08-14-2013 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 936 by GDR
08-13-2013 9:53 PM


Re: calm, breath
Can you tell me what objective evidence is there that isn't scientific? I assume that it is only empirical or scientific evidence that you would consider objective. For example if I say that I consider that morality is evidence for Tom I acknowledge that it isn't scientific or objective.
You're all over the place here.
1) Stories about history for example are one good source of evidence that isn't scientific. Many stories are confirmed fact because there is enough written evidence from many different, unrelated sources that confirm said event.
2) Empirical evidence can be like my example above, so that's different from scientific evidence. I will accept both.
3) And your beliefs about the nature of morality are subjective and don't trump the rigorous methods used in science that explain morality through a Darwinian evolution. You've done zero testing of your hypothesis.
So again what evidence is there that isn't scientific?
Not just scientific, but it does have to be objective.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 936 by GDR, posted 08-13-2013 9:53 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 940 by GDR, posted 08-14-2013 11:20 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 943 of 1324 (704705)
08-14-2013 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 940 by GDR
08-14-2013 11:20 AM


Re: calm, breath
You continue to misrepresent my point of view, or don’t read what I post.
Really?
I am not arguing against the Darwinian evolution of morality. My point is that we can’t know objectively whether or not the evolutionary process is part of an intelligent plan or that it is simply one more mindless process in addition to the many others that produced life as we know it.
You need evidence of this intelligence before you can say it has a plan and a hand in anything. You can't put the cart before the horse.
All we have is evidence of natural processes. Anything else you care to imagine exists and might be at play is just your own personal belief.
We also don’t know whether or not in addition to the natural evolutionary forces Tom sparks our conscience.
We don't have evidence for Tom. You can't put the cart before the horse. Before we are to consider Tom as the spark of our conscience we need evidence for Tom. We explained this in detail for you already.
Before you consider Tom you should have objective evidence that Tom exists.
Out of curiosity what role does DNA play in promoting a higher moral standing in people as opposed to cultural memes?
None, I would say. However I'm no expert on how DNA functions.
When it comes to things that aren’t scientific no one’s view is objective and certainly not when it comes to the issue the existence of Tom, his nature and involvement in our lives. That doesn’t mean our beliefs are cast in stone but we all have our biases. That is not to say that all view points are equally valid.
That's all fine and good. But when you claim Tom has any involvement in reality, you must first have evidence for Tom. You can't put the cart before the horse. That is logically wrong.
I started this thread arguing that we only have evidence for one thing, and that is that everything works naturally. It isn't that "we don't know what else might be at play." It's that there is no evidence for anything else at play so we don't draw any further conclusions for now.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by GDR, posted 08-14-2013 11:20 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 944 by NosyNed, posted 08-14-2013 1:28 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 948 by GDR, posted 08-14-2013 9:12 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 962 of 1324 (704763)
08-16-2013 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 948 by GDR
08-14-2013 9:12 PM


I think this settles the question
There is no evidence that I can point to that objectively tells us that Tom exists.
Then until we do, Tom can't be the answer to any question IF the question of Tom's existence itself is unknown.
That way you prevent making logical fallacies.
I do not need objective evidence before considering Tom or the FSM. I come to my beliefs on other grounds.
Well if it's not objective then you have no way of knowing if there even exists a Tom. Therefore it is NOT equivalent to saying natural process are at work, since for natural processes we have an endless supply of objective evidence.
You reject what I see as evidence for Tom so this takes us nowhere.
Well no, it leaves us with you having all your work ahead of you BEFORE you can suggest that any phenomena (ie. life, solar systems, even the Big Bang) is caused by Tom.
Your subjective evidence doesn't get rejected, it simply isn't actual evidence by any standard.
I agree that the evidence is not scientific nor is it conclusive.
That's not correct. The reason is because it is not objective and therefore not actual evidence by any standard.
OK, so you’ll call that an argument from incredulity but so what. Maybe it appears incredulous because it really is.
You do realize this makes your whole position fall apart?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 948 by GDR, posted 08-14-2013 9:12 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 968 by GDR, posted 08-17-2013 4:39 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 965 of 1324 (704787)
08-17-2013 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 964 by GDR
08-16-2013 7:21 PM


All it would show is that it took intelligence to make it happen this time.
You do understand that scientist would be REPRODUCING an ACTUAL event in which these specific elements created life naturally, right?
What it says is it took an intelligence to understand how it happened.
Ergo, the only example we have did take intelligence.
Yes, GDR, it took an intelligent person (or group of people) to figure out what elements were around in the early days of the Earth. And by reproducing those conditions we can understand how they react to each other naturally and bring about life.
Although, let me note something very important, that it wasn't a single event that brought about life. It was the accumulation of many small events that collectively makes life emerge.
I don't know how or why you tried to twist all that around to make it look like evidence that an intelligence did it. When clearly all the intelligence (ie. us) is trying to do is re-create the original event so that we understand how it functions naturally.
I haven't figured out who you are trying to be dishonest to, us or yourself...?
Also, of course it required the cocktail of chemicals to all be found in the same place with all of the right temperatures, gravitational forces or whatever else might be required, all at just the right time. Co-incidence — I think not.
If by "same place" you mean Earth, and by "tempurature" you mean the well known conditions of the Earth's surface, and by "the right time" you mean billions of years then coincidence seems fine. But, it looks more like an inevitable chemical reaction given the conditions, that probably happened many time before it took off and survived till today.
I mean, there are billions and billions of planets out there. It makes sense that it happens eventually. It is absolutely inevitable that, given what we know about life, it eventually emerges and survives.
God, if anything, made planets, not life.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by GDR, posted 08-16-2013 7:21 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 969 by GDR, posted 08-17-2013 4:47 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 987 of 1324 (704850)
08-19-2013 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 968 by GDR
08-17-2013 4:39 PM


Materialistic beliefs?
But I would also say that there is no evidence that can point objectively to strictly materialistic beliefs.
You've already admitted there is no objective evidence for any alternative. Of course there are no absolutes, but we can say with confidence that it seems like, according to the evidence, there is only nature at play.
There is no objective evidence as to whether the natural processes came into existence either with an intelligent plan or by non-intelligent materialistic forces.
Non-intelligent materialistic forces? Are you just going to make up any terminology you want?
As far as an intelligent plan...well that's not a question we need to even ask. Obviously, since as you admit, there is no objective evidence that a godly intelligence exists.
Can't put the cart before the horse. And I'll keep repeating that until you get it.
Tell that to the philosophers.
Philosophers aren't claiming to have subjective evidence. They're usually smart enough people to know there is no such thing as subjective evidence.
However, by your criteria the same is true for materialistic beliefs.
There is no such thing as a materialistic belief. Being familiar with and knowledgable about the objective evidence surrounding the nature of reality as opposed to subjective notions of intelligent forces is not a "belief" any more than understaing the evidence we have about gravity is a belief.
I just don’t believe that what can be proven empirically is able to provide us with all that is true about our existence.
Well what else is there that has such a high level of accuracy? There is no other method to find the truth about a phenomena other than to study it objectively and gather empirical evidence. How else would you demonstrate your findings otherwise?
I just don’t see science proving that my wife loves me although subjectively I believe she does.
Believing your wife loves you is not proof that your wife loves you. In both cases you're left without proof. So what's your point?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 968 by GDR, posted 08-17-2013 4:39 PM GDR has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 988 of 1324 (704851)
08-19-2013 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 969 by GDR
08-17-2013 4:47 PM


Well it would be science producing a possible albeit likely actual event.
It would also take the intelligence of scientists to reproduce the event as well as discover it.
Yes, of course.
So what you are postulating is a natural process, that caused the natural process, that caused the natural process............ and it's turtles all the way down.
Ummm, yes. Sure, that's fine.
I mean, you have watched lightning happen right? Can you point to the part in the process that ISN'T natural processes all the way down?
Well if God made the planets then He created the situation out of which life could arise.
Yes, if you want to believe that, sure.
From the little I know there is only one evolutionary chain leading back to single celled life. Has this planet existed for a long enough period to have had it happen several times?
Many scientist have suggested it is likely life had a few chances. 4.5 billion years is plenty of time, it seems like.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 969 by GDR, posted 08-17-2013 4:47 PM GDR has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 990 of 1324 (704853)
08-19-2013 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 986 by GDR
08-19-2013 10:25 AM


Re: Suffering
Also if I am right and intelligence and morality are derived as a result of Tom
First you need empirical evidence that a Tom exists before you can say anything happens because of Tom. You'll never be right uuntil then. And what it does is leaves us with ONE sole, objectively evidenced explanation for morality and intelligence and that is evolution and natural processes.
I'm sorry you feel nature is robotic, or that we have objective evidence that natural processes take us all the way back to the Big Bang. But that is what the evidence shows us. So be as incredulous as you like about reality, it only hinders YOU.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 986 by GDR, posted 08-19-2013 10:25 AM GDR has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 991 of 1324 (704854)
08-19-2013 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 982 by GDR
08-18-2013 10:38 PM


Re: Required
My point has been that Tom is responsible for the natural events that we observe
First you need objective evidence that there is a Tom before you have any point to make about the nature of Tom and what he can do.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 982 by GDR, posted 08-18-2013 10:38 PM GDR has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 997 of 1324 (704982)
08-21-2013 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 996 by GDR
08-20-2013 5:15 PM


Re: Rebooting
art of the issue from my perspective is that you guys take materialistic theories and call it science.
No one here has done that. Can you give an example? All we are referencing is objective evidence and the scietific method vs your own personal subjective interpretation of the facts.
In fact, the only one that keeps bringing up materialism is YOU.
I think that it is reasonable that you would say that all we have been able to discover are natural processes and that is suggestive of the idea that there is nothing but natural processes involved in our existence.
And also the fact that there is no objective evidence for an intelligent agent (ie. Tom) at all.
The reason you believe complexity suggests there is a Tom is because you already arrive at the issue of complexity believing Tom exists. So everything after that you try to say it is proof of Tom, and you commit your favorate fallacy of putting the cart before the horse. A fallacy that should suggest to you that perhaps you've approached the issue in the wrong manner.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would actually think that way. If there is a plan then there is an ultimate meaning to our existence. If there is no plan then ultimately all will be gone with no memory of what once was. If there is a plan then we have to think about what part we play in that plan but if there is no plan then ultimately it doesn’t matter what we do.
Sure, but since there is no evidence for a planner, it follows that there is no evidence of any plan.
I agree that there is no objective evidence that an intelligence exists but i do believe that there is a great deal that is suggestive that Tom exists.
This new word you want to use "suggestive" is just another way of presenting an argument from incredulity.
Volcanoes used to suggest that gods were angry. Do they still suggest that?
If my wife prepares a great meal for me it is suggestive but not conclusive that she loves me.
Sure, but then again she does exist, she is your wife already, love exists, and there is nothing that requires you to believe something without proof of it. In other words, she's real. Love is a real feeling (aside from getting into the chemical aspect of it).
So when you say it is suggestive of love, you're pointing to something for which there is objective evidence of. Not something for which ZERO objective evidence exists.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 996 by GDR, posted 08-20-2013 5:15 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 999 by GDR, posted 08-21-2013 4:17 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 1000 of 1324 (704991)
08-21-2013 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 999 by GDR
08-21-2013 4:17 PM


Re: Rebooting
The example I would give you is simply that there are only natural processes with no intelligent input responsible for the existence of life.
I have NOT said there are ONLY natural processes. I have said, repeatedly, over now 1000 posts, that there is no objective evidence for an intelligent designer.
So, to conclude that life, or volcanos, or the Big Bang suggest an intelligence and a plan, first, you would need objective evidence of a designer. Otherwise it's nothing more than an argument from incredulity.
If that doesn’t apply then I’ll use whatever term you want me to.
No term applies, since this thread is about YOU and YOUR belief and how it stands up to scurtiny.
I have not made any claims about philosophy, materialist or otherwise. The ONLY THING that I have discussed in this thread is YOUR position.
... which is exactly what you do when you attribute life to nothing but natural processes with no intelligent input.
But I don't do that. I have not said it is 'nothing but natural process'. I have said, repeatedly, over now 1000 posts, that there is no objective evidence for an intelligent designer and there is ONLY objective evidence of natural processes.
This is about what objective evidence exists and what can be derived from that evidence. Even if there is an intelligence that created the universe, that still doesn't mean this intelligence had a hand in the creation of life. It could just be that it created the universe and left it alone to evolve on it's own as designed.
So again, first we need objective evidence of a designer. Then we can go on to investigate if the designer is hands on or just creates the universe and leaves it alone. In other words, all the work is still ahead of you.
All natural processes including evolution are suggestive of a plan.
No they aren't.
It is the plan that is suggestive of a planner not the other way around.
Sure, but since you're wrong to begin with, the rest doesn't follow.
Evolution doesn't suggest a plan when 99% of all species that have ever lived on earth are extinct. What a shitty plan.
.. but it is fine for you to say that the fact that science has only found natural processes is not only suggestive that only natural processes exist but it is evidence of it.
Well no, see, not JUST evidence of natural processes. It is also the LACK of objective evidence for any other alternative.
Maybe it's not god, or Tom, or anything spiritual. Maybe it's like Dr. A. said: Some scientists in another universe that created us just to take bets on who masterbates the most. I would probably win, btw.
There is no limit to what there could be out there. Tom is just one belief, there is a lot more. But, for now, all we have evidence for is natural processes. So tentitively, we can say with confidence that it suggests there is nothing else. But, that is not an absolute fact. If I ever see evidence of gambing scientists from another universe I would have to give that alternative hypothesis some credit in creating us.
No. I subjectively decide based on what I objectively know, in the same way that I subjectively come to the conclusion that Tom exists based on what I objectively know. I objectively know that conscious life exists for example.
What do you mean no? There is evidence of the feeling love and scientific evidence of the chemical reactions when one feels love. There is no evidence for Tom.
When you say your wife making you dinner suggests she loves you, you can say that with confidence because there is evidence for love. When you say that consciousness suggests there is a Tom, you say that having ZERO evidence for Tom like you do with love.
Therefore it is not the same thing.
So, even if you find the process that began evolution then that process also needed a cause and once again it is turtles all the way down.
It's not turtles all the way down.
That's what you would have to believe when you make your argument that complexity suggests a designer, which the intelligent designer would have to be even more complex, and by your own logic would need an intelligent designer was well. THEN it's turtles all the way down.
For evolution it would mean that the bonding of elements (ie. chemistry) created life, and the elements were found on Earth when the planet formed, and planetary formation occurs when a star froms, and stars form due to the collapse in gravity of hydrogen atoms that fuse to created helium. And that takes us back to the Big Bang.
No more turtles needed.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 999 by GDR, posted 08-21-2013 4:17 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1005 by GDR, posted 08-21-2013 9:39 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 1002 of 1324 (704997)
08-21-2013 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1001 by GDR
08-21-2013 5:11 PM


Re: Rebooting
Now my theistic views are scientific theories and can be considered science.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1001 by GDR, posted 08-21-2013 5:11 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1006 by GDR, posted 08-21-2013 9:43 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 1016 of 1324 (705038)
08-22-2013 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1005 by GDR
08-21-2013 9:39 PM


Re: Rebooting
You can call it an argument from incredibility all you like but the fact is that in the view of many including myself, although there is no empirical objective evidence, the world as we experience it is in so many ways suggestive of a plan requiring a planner.
The world as many experienced it long ago was suggestive of it being flat. Still want to hold on to that line of reasoning?
Sure the thread is about my beliefs but either we are the result of an intelligent planner or we are the result of nothing but non-intelligent natural processes.
This again is an either-or fallacy that you keep bringing up. There is no objective evidence for any planner, so there is no either or question.
Yes there is no evidence as you understand the word evidence for a designer.
As I understand the word evidence? That's rich! So now you have a different definition for evidence? One that includes incredulous reasoning?
There is a designer or there isn’t, and it is my view again that the world we experience is very suggestive of a designer and IMHO the natural processes themselves are highly suggestive of a designer.
Without objective evidence this is no better than those who thought the world was flat.
That is your subjective opinion.
No, it is based on objective evidence and the lack of objective evidence for a planner.
The extinct species have just evolved into new species and apparently in many cases more advanced species.
You really need to study biology for a bit, GDR. And they say Americans are falling behind in science. Seems like Canada is on it's way as well.
Maybe there is an ulterior motive, however, although I can’t know it, it is an suggestive of the fact that she loves me.
You've missed my point. It is suggestive of love, let's say that. But love is a known thing to exist. When you say nature is suggestive of a planner, since there is no objective evidence for a planner, it is not the same thing. Your analogy fails to prove it's point because love is known but planners are unknown, unevidenced and imagined.
You can go back to whatever point you want but our science tells us that nothing happens without cause.
No, in fact quantum mechanics proves just the opposite.
A billiard ball will sit forever on a the table until something happens to make it move.
Interestingly enough, the ball has been moving the entire time, so has the table, and the Earth they sit on. Along with the solar system the Earth finds itself in. Relativity my dear Watson...relativity.
We know from science that there is much more to our reality than what we directly perceive.
Like the fact that the billiard ball has been moving the entire time? Yes, you are right. But first, I think one should brush up on a few scientific theories, otherwise the Earth will seem flat and volcanos the result of angry gods.
Now I realize that is theory and that the author is not talking about a place for Tom.
It's a hypothesis not a theory.
However theoretically Tom could exist as part of a greater reality with multiple time dimensions meaning that conceivably our universe with just one time dimension is part of something greater with more than one dimension in time resulting in life without any boundaries of time.
This is nonsense. I won't go further than to just say it's nonsense, because to go further would just be to insult someone who seems to not know much about these subjects.
You can imagine whatever you want, GDR.
I agree that is very highly speculative but at least it is one way of considering a first cause from a theistic perspective where it isn’t turtles all the way down as it is with your proposal.
Unfortunately it's just a cobbled up mess of words you vaguely understand which you've tried to use out of context to make sense of something that you barely grasp yourself.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1005 by GDR, posted 08-21-2013 9:39 PM GDR has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 1030 of 1324 (705345)
08-26-2013 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1018 by GDR
08-22-2013 1:50 PM


Re: Rebooting
However, we still need a cause for life and particularly for conscious life.
But why does that cause have to be anything other than natural processes like chemistry and biology? Seems to work just fine for traits like sonar in dolphins and flight in birds. Why does consciousness seem like it requires the power of a god?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1018 by GDR, posted 08-22-2013 1:50 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1031 by GDR, posted 08-26-2013 2:21 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 1103 of 1324 (706568)
09-14-2013 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1098 by GDR
09-13-2013 1:54 PM


There is no objective evidence for that explanation.
Everything Straggler wrote is objectively evidenced.
Break each one down:
1) Our brains did not evolve in the environment of a globalised world economy consisting of billions of distantly related people.
That is obviously a fact.
2) Our brains did evolve in small hunter gatherer communities consisting of closely related others.
This is also a fact for which we have museums of evidence for it.
3) Our moral instsincts thus developed in an environment where those around us carry almost all of the same genes.
Obviously, it only follows that it would given the fact that our brains evolved in small communities.
4) Our moral instincts thus evolved in an environment where, from a genes eye point of view, the sacrifice of an individual gene carrier can promote the ongoing propogation of the genes in question.
This is basically repeating fact number 3.
5) So when you say - "Morality can work against the survival of the genes we carry" you are making the mistake of looking at this fom the point of view of an individual in the modern world rather than the point of view of genes in our ancestral environment.
This is also true. You are making this mistake.
He goes on to say:
I have previously called this "The Big Mac effect" - Why are we drawn to eat high fat, high sugar foods despite the fact that in the modern world these are more likely to kill us than make us successful gene propogators? Because the proclivity in question developed in our ancestral environment rather than our modern one.
This is also a fact, which doctors know and is the reason for modern day obesity.
So....... Where is there no objective evidence as you claim? Please be specific.
As I said earlier the small hunter gatherer communities were always at each other’s throats so I think it is pretty far-fetched to conclude that our altruistic leanings evolved from them.
You've missed the point by a distance of a football field.
Your brain evolved around small communities of YOUR relatives, and around small communities of close relatives of yours. Today your genes assume the same thing, that everyone is a close relative. We still live by the point of view of our ancestral environment in a modern world.
Actually my point is about an evolved morality being 100% materialistic without an intelligent moral planner.
First you need evidence for the intelligent designer. Then you can try to figure out what that designer did. Because, he could very well be a guy who likes to make stars and leave the rest to physics.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1098 by GDR, posted 09-13-2013 1:54 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1108 by GDR, posted 09-15-2013 3:08 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 1107 of 1324 (706592)
09-15-2013 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1104 by GDR
09-15-2013 9:15 AM


In the end though it still does not tell us whether or not the process was designed. It also does not tell us whether or not there might be other influences involved. For that matter, it does not tell us whether or not the processes that created beings that can actually figure that stuff out were intelligently designed or not.
Right, it doesn't tell us any of that. Ask yourself WHY it doesn't? Perhaps, maybe, just maybe, none of that is relevant to understanding morality?
You just agreed that everything can be understood and explained from a biological, neurological, and social standpoint without unfounded leaps in logic so then that ends the discussion about morality. Period.
You keep doing this over and over in this thread where you present a gap that you see a designer can fit. Then, when everything is explained to you through science, you back off and say "Yeah, that's all true and I agree with it, but you still can't disprove it wasn't done by a designer."
Well that's not we are trying to do. All we are trying to do is show you objective evidence that explains how we have morality without the need for a designer. The rest is up to you to prove.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1104 by GDR, posted 09-15-2013 9:15 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1110 by GDR, posted 09-15-2013 4:22 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024