Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE

[ding]

So all of the bad things that people ascribe to this universe and blame God for and use as an excuse to not surrender to God's will, don't really exist. They are the absence of God's attributes and attributed to man's free will to not choose God's attributes.

The universe is neither "bad" nor "good" it simply is.

Actually, existence is good. Bad is not extant. Bad is the absence of good. It is two sides of the same coin but the coin is good. We know this because everyone has a preference for good. Even bad people.

Those are value judgement therefore subjective.

Your assertion that there are only 2 states: the bad and the good leaves out the most prevalent state of the natural world, neutrality.

There is no bad. There is only good. By any objective measure existence is good. Go ahead and do a full accounting. What you perceive as bad is..

1. the absence of good
2. completely overstated
3. tiny in comparison to what is good

Arguing neutrality is a shade of grey that has no bearing on the self evident truth that existence is good.

Again good is a subjective assessment imposed by humans on the world.

Good and bad have no meaning to the universe.

Your behaviors say otherwise.

What behaviors are those?

That she behaves as if she believes in absolute truth and fairness. Everyone behaves that way.

you said that as a response to my post so what behaviors of mine were you referring to?

I just told you. You believe in absolute truth and fairness. You may say you don't but you prove otherwise with every quarrel and argument you have. Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

But I don't believe in absolute fairness or in absolute morals.

And my own personal sense of right and wrong is mostly due to the society I was raised in.

There are so many contradictions to the idea of absolute morality that I could never run out of examples.

Humans are so adept at holding two opposing thoughts that we don't even realize we do it.

Example:

A man is mowing the lawn in a park and he sees a flock of baby chickens but instead of going around them he runs them over and his mower spews out macerated baby birds all over the grass. A group of parents with their children see him do this and are appalled at the cruelty. The man with the mower is arrested for his crime and will at least be fined if not jailed and will probably lose his job.

These parents of the traumatized children celebrate their victory over this evil man by all going out for a breakfast of scrambled eggs and bacon.

Now the farmers at the poultry farm where those eggs are collected will routinely throw live male baby chicks into a machine where they are macerated while still alive.

But the farmer who macerates the baby chicks on the farm is not considered evil.

There is no moral absolute there

Your behaviors do say you believe in absolute morals and fairness. That's why when someone violates what you believe is right or fair, it illicits a strong feeling within you. If you really didn't believe in absolute morals and fairness, you wouldn't care because those concepts would just be opinions with no opinion being better than any other.

As I said before logic determines what is right and wrong and fair. So society and you are free to pick whatever silly thing you want but logic says you will suffer the consequences of picking lower standards. But I am really shocked that you would accept child molestation as moral if society said it was moral. I wouldn't because logic says it is wrong.

As to your moral dilemma example... unnecessary death or death for pleasure is wrong. The eggs we eat are unfertilized so no moral dilemma there, right? Every living creature is born to die so death in and of itself is not bad because without regeneration there would be no life. Death is a necessary part of life. It is the unnecessary taking of life that is morally wrong. So if a farmer is unnecessarily killing males, it is wrong. I don't see anyone celebrating it, other than maybe you who is trying to profit from it to rationalize there is no such thing as good and bad when logic clearly says otherwise. You lose again.

How do you know what does or does not elicit "strong feelings" in me?

And you really downplay the effect society has on people. We are products of the society we are raised in. If we were raised in a society that was war like and placed warriors above all others and that glory in battle was the only thing that mattered ( Think Sparta) we would not have the aversion to killing that we do today.

And FYI I don't eat any animal products at all anymore because I think factory farming is cruel. I for one do not want to contribute to the suffering and death of animals just so I can eat meat, or eggs etc.

So you might want to stop making assumptions about me and stick to the topic.

How do I know what does or does not elicit "strong feelings" in you? The same way I know the mailman delivers mail to you. I have never seen the mailman stop at your mail box, but I know he stops at mine. I have never seen what he puts in your mail box but I know that he puts mail in mine. It's not that hard to figure out that you are no different than others, dummy.

Sure, you are a product of the society you live. A society that has established moral standards that are based in part on logic and experiences. If they establish the highest standard then they will experience less negative consequences. This isn't rocket science. We have the aversion to killing today because we learned from their experiences. Logic informed us that societies like that are not harmonious. It's the same reason why we learned that cheating on our spouse after pledging not to cheat on our spouse has negative consequences but one does not have to actually experience the negative consequences to know it's wrong. He can use logic to figure it out. I bet even back in the Sparta days there were those who knew what was going on was fucked up. Why can't you figure these things out for yourself?

Since you figured out that eating animals is wrong, how do you feel about others who eat animals? Are they wrong too?

That was quite the circuitous route you took to determine I shouldn't make assumptions about you. Especially since I never assumed you ate animal products. As for my assumption that when you see someone doing something you believe is morally wrong and having strong feeling about it, that has yet to be proven wrong, dummy.

 

[ding]

when humans were tribal and nomadic there was a different set of morals.

as humans started to live in larger groups there had to be a corresponding shift in behaviors and attitudes.

Morals are nothing but acceptable behaviors that a society defines.

There is no universal set of morals because even today there exists differences in morals between different societies

Religious people like to claim that their god has put down a universal code and that does not prove that there is one.

I missed this earlier, but ding addresses it masterfully. Simply stated, moral truth is deciphered or discovered by finite minds via experience and logic. The sort of differences you seem to be alluding to are societal or cultural norms. The fundamentals of morality are universally understood. The violation of the latter will always entail some form of coercion or suppression.

There is no moral truth.

Morals are a human concept. And as human societies become similar, the more their behaviors and attitudes will align.

That this happens is not necessarily proof that there is some absolute moral code floating in the ether but rather it demonstrates that humans are far more alike than they are different

So there are no moral absolutes, except the moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes?

crickets chirping

On another thread, you held that there's a difference between killing someone and murdering someone..

So what precisely is your underlying justification for this moral distinction, and by what means do you make this distinction?

Yes, I am very curious about his answers too. It seems that good and bad do have meaning to him and he is part of the universe.

So you are so arrogant as to think your thoughts are the thoughts of the universe?

We are nothing when compared to the vastness of the universe. Humans have been in existence for 200000 years or so. That is nothing compared to the age of the universe.

We are the universe so to speak. We are the most complex thing the universe has ever produced. You can only know what something is by what it ends up being. The universe is an intelligence creating machine. The universe was created by intelligence to produce intelligence.

we are not the universe.

we are creatures exisiting in the framework of the universe. The universe has been here long before us and will be here long after we are gone

The atoms in your body were created from nothing ~14 billion years ago. Since that time they have merely changed form. Or don't you believe in the conservation of energy?

That has nothing to do with morals.

Once again you equate the physical world with thought.

It has to do with your argument that you are not the universe. That the universe is not conscious or that consciousness plays no part in anything. The universe is every single thing that has existed since the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago. You are part of it. Even Carl Sagan recognized the universe became conscious through human beings. I'm not sure why a conscious being like yourself cannot see it.

We got onto this because you intentionally took Nobel Laureate George Wald's statements out of context.

We exist in the framework of the universe and yes the elements in our bodies were created in stars long ago.

But that does not mean we are the universe nor does it mean we can affect the universe with a thought.

Look at it this way, a neuron in your body is part of your body but does that neuron make you who you are? If that neuron dies from an injury do you stop being you?

Everything in the universe is the universe. It's no different than your heart is you, your liver is you, your skin is you, etc.

It's not some other universe is it?

Now you want to get into what makes you you? That's a whole other discussion you can lose. Not to mention it proves my point. There is no one thing that makes you you. It is the sum of your parts. It's no different for the universe. There is no one thing that makes the universe the universe. It is the sum of the parts. One of which is you, a conscious being. ergo the universe is conscious. Just as YOU are conscious even if your heart isn't. #winning.

 

[ding]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Behold, the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all. Everyone knows when they violate this standard as they cannot sustain their petty to vile violations of this standard by any other means but coercion or suppression.

Behold, we are not beholden to religious extremists who make false and unsubstantiated claims such as "the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all''.

Firstly, ''natural law'' is not a function of supernatural gods who would ''naturally'' create supernatural law. Secondly, various cultures inventing various gods who delivered contradictory versions of law refutes quite clearly the religious extremists' statement about some universal standard,

Behold, the confused, inarticulate rambling of the religious extremist.

Nothing unsubstantiated about what was written in this thread. In fact, you have not refuted one single thing.

just as you have not proven one of your assertions

I disagree. I have explained what it is. You have only argued what it isn't.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

right and wrong as concepts are a human invention. They did not exist before our minds were capable of the intellectual processes that could consider them.

The history of societal morals is the history of man as they could not have existed before man.

Our morals have evolved for no other reason than some behaviors are more beneficial to survival.

The concept of fairness is no different. In fact I believe the concept of fairness was born out of the human trait of jealousy.

Right and wrong / fairness is an artifact of intelligence. It is based on logic. It existed before man existed and was only waiting to be discovered like everything else which is apart from man.

Logic was invented by man in an attempt to better his own reasoning ability.

We have already covered this before. Logic, math, science, music, art, love, mercy, kindness, forgiveness, etc all exist apart from man. They are artifacts of intelligence. You keep confusing man inventing those things when by any objective measurement man discovered those things.

You keep saying that but you have yet to prove it.

There was no musical code writ in the ether for man to discover.

I could argue that the first man that heard a sound discovered that sound but that isn't really the way we became aware of sounds and their causes.

I have proven it. No one invented those things. They were discovered. There's your proof. If the universe disappeared tomorrow, our eternal mathematical, scientific, logical truths, etc. would still exist. And this will really blow your mind... everything which exists existed in potential before space and time were created from nothing because space and time were created according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time itself.

 

[Ringtone]

right and wrong as concepts are a human invention. They did not exist before our minds were capable of the intellectual processes that could consider them.

This is an ontological claim of ultimate origin.

 

[Ringtone]

I disagree. I have explained what it is. You have only argued what it isn't.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

That's the very best summarization of the matter I've ever read.

 

[ding]

right and wrong as concepts are a human invention. They did not exist before our minds were capable of the intellectual processes that could consider them.

This is an ontological claim of ultimate origin.

Nothing can exist that was not preordained to exist through the laws of nature. Everything which has unfolded could only unfold per the laws of nature. So everything which exists existed as potential before space and time were created. Things do not exist because we invented them. They exist because the laws of nature preordained them. We only can discover what nature has preordained would exist. And everything which exists exists for logical reasons.

 

[BreezeWood]

right and wrong as concepts are a human invention. They did not exist before our minds were capable of the intellectual processes that could consider them.

This is an ontological claim of ultimate origin.

Nothing can exist that was not preordained to exist through the laws of nature. Everything which has unfolded could only unfold per the laws of nature. So everything which exists existed as potential before space and time were created. Things do not exist because we invented them. They exist because the laws of nature preordained them. We only can discover what nature has preordained would exist. And everything which exists exists for logical reasons.

.

Nothing can exist that was not preordained to exist through the laws of nature.

.
as has been stated before, you prove nothing coming out of your smoke stack.

physiology is not preordained to exist in any particular manor and is dependent on its spiritual content for the duration of its existence which as evolution attests proves finite in duration of both.

 

[ding]

I could argue that the first man that heard a sound discovered that sound but that isn't really the way we became aware of sounds and their causes.

You could argue that but that would be wrong as it ignores the mathematical nature of music. A monkey banging on a keyboard produces sound. Music comes from order and logical progressions. There is nothing random about music. And it's not an accident that music and art produces an inspirational effect in humans that literally touches our soul or that we respond to music and art the way we do.

 

[ding]

right and wrong as concepts are a human invention. They did not exist before our minds were capable of the intellectual processes that could consider them.

This is an ontological claim of ultimate origin.

Nothing can exist that was not preordained to exist through the laws of nature. Everything which has unfolded could only unfold per the laws of nature. So everything which exists existed as potential before space and time were created. Things do not exist because we invented them. They exist because the laws of nature preordained them. We only can discover what nature has preordained would exist. And everything which exists exists for logical reasons.

.

Nothing can exist that was not preordained to exist through the laws of nature.

.
as has been stated before, you prove nothing coming out of your smoke stack.

physiology is not preordained to exist in any particular manor and is dependent on its spiritual content for the duration of its existence which as evolution attests proves finite in duration of both.

Evolution says otherwise. A specific physiology was absolutely preordained as its goal is to produce consciousness. There are not multiple paths to intelligence. There are a very well defined set of requirements. Everything which has unfolded since the beginning of time was working towards producing intelligence.

 

[Ringtone]

There are no moral absolutes.

Why do you keep contradicting yourself?

In any event, that's not your position at all! Your position is that no moral absolutes exist except the moral absolute that moral absolutes don't exist. Hence, the moral absolute that no moral absolutes exist is absolutely false. You're still trying to rationalize an absurdity, i.e., an inherently contradictory, self-negating assertion which proves the opposite is necessarily true.

We've gone over this before. Why do you repeat a falsified argument?

Let's take killing.

Either killing is wrong or it isn't[,] right?

Right.

crickets chirping

It seems we as a society can't even agree on that.

Really?

If a person kills my wife. . . .

Was your wife trying to murder him, or did he murder her?

 

[Ringtone]

.
there are absolutes between one or the other in triumph however the divergence of good and evil being equal precludes a set standard otherwise - in accordance from antiquity.

Do you speak English?

.

is there a physiological being without a spirit ...

Do you speak English?

.
howbout it ringtone, your 4th century religion's forgeries -
.
View attachment 450592
.
is there a physiological being without a spirit - other than collective humanity and their disingenuous self interests promoted and disguised as religions. christianity. pure in its unwavering scriptures.

Sorry, but I don't speak baby talk.

 

[Hollie]

There are no moral absolutes.

Why do you keep contradicting yourself?

In any event, that's not your position at all! Your position is that no moral absolutes exist except the moral absolute that moral absolutes don't exist. Hence, the moral absolute that no moral absolutes exist is absolutely false. You're still trying to rationalize an absurdity, i.e., an inherently contradictory, self-negating assertion which proves the opposite is necessarily true.

We've gone over this before. Why do you repeat a falsified argument?

Let's take killing.

Either killing is wrong or it isn't[,] right?

Right.

crickets chirping

It seems we as a society can't even agree on that.

Really?

If a person kills my wife. . . .

Was your wife trying to murder him, or did he murder her?

Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of “you don’t understand”, what would lead you to imagine that any such thing as “moral absolutes given by your gods” exist? You have made no supportable argument for the existence of any of your gods, so your insistence that your gods have established anything is mere fallacy. The very fact that our current zeitgeist allows us to declare behaviors right or wrong entirely out of prejudice (and make no mistake that is what you are doing) while other cultures reached different conclusions should be your first clue that there are no non-relativist reference points. The beliefs that “enslaving human beings, or deliberately blowing up children on a school bus, is morally wrong” are not universally shared. Different people have reached different conclusions on those issues. Specifically, in the case of slavery, across the vast expanse of human history the belief that it is wrong to enslave human beings is almost certainly a very recent minority opinion.

I can raise the example of the Nazis. Now, do you honestly think that the Nazis thought of themselves as non-objective moral relativists? Or do you instead suspect that such transcendent brutality is more likely to come from a perspective of complete conviction in the morality of their behavior? It seems to be widely believed that what the Nazis did was some sort of paean to ethical relativism, and that the only possible basis for condemning them is because, somewhere, we have a revealed judgment from god to that effect.

Bullfrog Croaking

In discussions like these, I simply have to say that it grows profoundly tiresome to have religious extremists float the idea that their gods example the ideal of “moral instruction” as if it were some rhetorical “get out of jail free” card in a moral Monopoly game. When Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ came out, I watched it and felt it to be deeply anti-Semitic. But I could not honestly say that it was not an accurate reflection of the New Testament attitude towards the Jews. Christian anti-Semitism has what is (to them) a solid “scriptural” basis. Even “Saint Augustine” eventually authored a Diatribe Against the Jews as a result.

Oddly, the brutal attempted genocide of the Nazis is different only in magnitude from some of the instructions that the god of the Old Testament gave for the treatment of certain conquered peoples by the Israelites.

Bullfrog Croaking

If there was a debate between the Nazis and the Americans as to which was wrong (and of course we know that there was), that can only be because the community affected by the actions of the Nazis included both groups. The Nazis were wrong because the community recognized then (and we recognize now) that their actions impinged on the shared community interests of stability, security, justice and opportunity (that was a part of the lesson you got earlier). And so the involved community (i.e. the civilized world) sacrificed their own wealth and blood to stop it.

Bullfrog Croaking

 

[BreezeWood]

right and wrong as concepts are a human invention. They did not exist before our minds were capable of the intellectual processes that could consider them.

This is an ontological claim of ultimate origin.

Nothing can exist that was not preordained to exist through the laws of nature. Everything which has unfolded could only unfold per the laws of nature. So everything which exists existed as potential before space and time were created. Things do not exist because we invented them. They exist because the laws of nature preordained them. We only can discover what nature has preordained would exist. And everything which exists exists for logical reasons.

.

Nothing can exist that was not preordained to exist through the laws of nature.

.
as has been stated before, you prove nothing coming out of your smoke stack.

physiology is not preordained to exist in any particular manor and is dependent on its spiritual content for the duration of its existence which as evolution attests proves finite in duration of both.

Evolution says otherwise. A specific physiology was absolutely preordained as its goal is to produce consciousness. There are not multiple paths to intelligence. There are a very well defined set of requirements. Everything which has unfolded since the beginning of time was working towards producing intelligence.

.

Evolution says otherwise. A specific physiology was absolutely preordained as its goal is to produce consciousness. There are not multiple paths to intelligence. There are a very well defined set of requirements. Everything which has unfolded since the beginning of time was working towards producing intelligence.

.
whose - "its" - goal.
no, physiology does not have goals nor evolution ... "specifically".

the spiritual content of physiology is not the means for its development - according to the religion of ... bing.

and evolution of humanity alone is preordained and immortality is not by the works of the spiritual content of all life - - again the religion of bing - the christian. two religions together what could go wrong.

 

[ding]

right and wrong as concepts are a human invention. They did not exist before our minds were capable of the intellectual processes that could consider them.

This is an ontological claim of ultimate origin.

Nothing can exist that was not preordained to exist through the laws of nature. Everything which has unfolded could only unfold per the laws of nature. So everything which exists existed as potential before space and time were created. Things do not exist because we invented them. They exist because the laws of nature preordained them. We only can discover what nature has preordained would exist. And everything which exists exists for logical reasons.

.

Nothing can exist that was not preordained to exist through the laws of nature.

.
as has been stated before, you prove nothing coming out of your smoke stack.

physiology is not preordained to exist in any particular manor and is dependent on its spiritual content for the duration of its existence which as evolution attests proves finite in duration of both.

Evolution says otherwise. A specific physiology was absolutely preordained as its goal is to produce consciousness. There are not multiple paths to intelligence. There are a very well defined set of requirements. Everything which has unfolded since the beginning of time was working towards producing intelligence.

.

Evolution says otherwise. A specific physiology was absolutely preordained as its goal is to produce consciousness. There are not multiple paths to intelligence. There are a very well defined set of requirements. Everything which has unfolded since the beginning of time was working towards producing intelligence.

.
whose - "its" - goal.
no, physiology does not have goals nor evolution ... "specifically".

the spiritual content of physiology is not the means for its development - according to the religion of ... bing.

and evolution of humanity alone is preordained and immortality is not by the works of the spiritual content of all life - - again the religion of bing - the christian. two religions together what could go wrong.

It's really more of God's will than goal. How else do you think He created us?

 

[Blues Man]

So all of the bad things that people ascribe to this universe and blame God for and use as an excuse to not surrender to God's will, don't really exist. They are the absence of God's attributes and attributed to man's free will to not choose God's attributes.

The universe is neither "bad" nor "good" it simply is.

Actually, existence is good. Bad is not extant. Bad is the absence of good. It is two sides of the same coin but the coin is good. We know this because everyone has a preference for good. Even bad people.

Those are value judgement therefore subjective.

Your assertion that there are only 2 states: the bad and the good leaves out the most prevalent state of the natural world, neutrality.

There is no bad. There is only good. By any objective measure existence is good. Go ahead and do a full accounting. What you perceive as bad is..

1. the absence of good
2. completely overstated
3. tiny in comparison to what is good

Arguing neutrality is a shade of grey that has no bearing on the self evident truth that existence is good.

Again good is a subjective assessment imposed by humans on the world.

Good and bad have no meaning to the universe.

Your behaviors say otherwise.

What behaviors are those?

That she behaves as if she believes in absolute truth and fairness. Everyone behaves that way.

you said that as a response to my post so what behaviors of mine were you referring to?

I just told you. You believe in absolute truth and fairness. You may say you don't but you prove otherwise with every quarrel and argument you have. Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

But I don't believe in absolute fairness or in absolute morals.

And my own personal sense of right and wrong is mostly due to the society I was raised in.

There are so many contradictions to the idea of absolute morality that I could never run out of examples.

Humans are so adept at holding two opposing thoughts that we don't even realize we do it.

Example:

A man is mowing the lawn in a park and he sees a flock of baby chickens but instead of going around them he runs them over and his mower spews out macerated baby birds all over the grass. A group of parents with their children see him do this and are appalled at the cruelty. The man with the mower is arrested for his crime and will at least be fined if not jailed and will probably lose his job.

These parents of the traumatized children celebrate their victory over this evil man by all going out for a breakfast of scrambled eggs and bacon.

Now the farmers at the poultry farm where those eggs are collected will routinely throw live male baby chicks into a machine where they are macerated while still alive.

But the farmer who macerates the baby chicks on the farm is not considered evil.

There is no moral absolute there

Your behaviors do say you believe in absolute morals and fairness. That's why when someone violates what you believe is right or fair, it illicits a strong feeling within you. If you really didn't believe in absolute morals and fairness, you wouldn't care because those concepts would just be opinions with no opinion being better than any other.

As I said before logic determines what is right and wrong and fair. So society and you are free to pick whatever silly thing you want but logic says you will suffer the consequences of picking lower standards. But I am really shocked that you would accept child molestation as moral if society said it was moral. I wouldn't because logic says it is wrong.

As to your moral dilemma example... unnecessary death or death for pleasure is wrong. The eggs we eat are unfertilized so no moral dilemma there, right? Every living creature is born to die so death in and of itself is not bad because without regeneration there would be no life. Death is a necessary part of life. It is the unnecessary taking of life that is morally wrong. So if a farmer is unnecessarily killing males, it is wrong. I don't see anyone celebrating it, other than maybe you who is trying to profit from it to rationalize there is no such thing as good and bad when logic clearly says otherwise. You lose again.

How do you know what does or does not elicit "strong feelings" in me?

And you really downplay the effect society has on people. We are products of the society we are raised in. If we were raised in a society that was war like and placed warriors above all others and that glory in battle was the only thing that mattered ( Think Sparta) we would not have the aversion to killing that we do today.

And FYI I don't eat any animal products at all anymore because I think factory farming is cruel. I for one do not want to contribute to the suffering and death of animals just so I can eat meat, or eggs etc.

So you might want to stop making assumptions about me and stick to the topic.

How do I know what does or does not elicit "strong feelings" in you? The same way I know the mailman delivers mail to you. I have never seen the mailman stop at your mail box, but I know he stops at mine. I have never seen what he puts in your mail box but I know that he puts mail in mine. It's not that hard to figure out that you are no different than others, dummy.

Sure, you are a product of the society you live. A society that has established moral standards that are based in part on logic and experiences. If they establish the highest standard then they will experience less negative consequences. This isn't rocket science. We have the aversion to killing today because we learned from their experiences. Logic informed us that societies like that are not harmonious. It's the same reason why we learned that cheating on our spouse after pledging not to cheat on our spouse has negative consequences but one does not have to actually experience the negative consequences to know it's wrong. He can use logic to figure it out. I bet even back in the Sparta days there were those who knew what was going on was fucked up. Why can't you figure these things out for yourself?

Since you figured out that eating animals is wrong, how do you feel about others who eat animals? Are they wrong too?

That was quite the circuitous route you took to determine I shouldn't make assumptions about you. Especially since I never assumed you ate animal products. As for my assumption that when you see someone doing something you believe is morally wrong and having strong feeling about it, that has yet to be proven wrong, dummy.

you really don't think about what you write you just speculate that I am trying to make a profit from killing animals

what is that other than an assumption about me?

So why don't you tell me what elicits strong feelings from me?

And I never said eating animals was wrong did I? I said I don't eat animals. Why do you have to put your value judgements on my behavior?

And It's not my place to tell other people what they should do or to judge them for things they do. That seems to be what you want me to do so you can try for some gotcha moment.

and I see you have stared with the name calling again so it seems that you haven't "discovered" the rules of logic yet because you fall to avoid the ad hominem trap

I have explained why behaviors and attitudes evolve in a society and it has nothing to do with some magic code floating around for people to discover. In fact it's even simpler than that because there is no need to assign some supernatural force as responsible for it.

Our behaviors have evolved so as to best encourage the survival of the human race.

 

[Blues Man]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Behold, the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all. Everyone knows when they violate this standard as they cannot sustain their petty to vile violations of this standard by any other means but coercion or suppression.

Behold, we are not beholden to religious extremists who make false and unsubstantiated claims such as "the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all''.

Firstly, ''natural law'' is not a function of supernatural gods who would ''naturally'' create supernatural law. Secondly, various cultures inventing various gods who delivered contradictory versions of law refutes quite clearly the religious extremists' statement about some universal standard,

Behold, the confused, inarticulate rambling of the religious extremist.

Nothing unsubstantiated about what was written in this thread. In fact, you have not refuted one single thing.

just as you have not proven one of your assertions

I disagree. I have explained what it is. You have only argued what it isn't.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

right and wrong as concepts are a human invention. They did not exist before our minds were capable of the intellectual processes that could consider them.

The history of societal morals is the history of man as they could not have existed before man.

Our morals have evolved for no other reason than some behaviors are more beneficial to survival.

The concept of fairness is no different. In fact I believe the concept of fairness was born out of the human trait of jealousy.

Right and wrong / fairness is an artifact of intelligence. It is based on logic. It existed before man existed and was only waiting to be discovered like everything else which is apart from man.

Logic was invented by man in an attempt to better his own reasoning ability.

We have already covered this before. Logic, math, science, music, art, love, mercy, kindness, forgiveness, etc all exist apart from man. They are artifacts of intelligence. You keep confusing man inventing those things when by any objective measurement man discovered those things.

You keep saying that but you have yet to prove it.

There was no musical code writ in the ether for man to discover.

I could argue that the first man that heard a sound discovered that sound but that isn't really the way we became aware of sounds and their causes.

I have proven it. No one invented those things. They were discovered. There's your proof. If the universe disappeared tomorrow, our eternal mathematical, scientific, logical truths, etc. would still exist. And this will really blow your mind... everything which exists existed in potential before space and time were created from nothing because space and time were created according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time itself.

no you didn't all you did was say they were discovered,

And when humans no longer exist our ideas of logic, math , music or whatever will only endure for as long as the records of those things we have made endure.

We are impermanent our thoughts are impermanent.

You don't seem to realize that what we call music might not be music to another form of life that evolved differently from us. So there is no universal code for music floating around in the ether.

What we call morals are not universal they are human because they were conceived by the human mind and apply only to humans.

The universe has been in existence for so long compared to us mere humans that we don't even make a mark on the timeline. To quote a song "We are but dust in the wind"

 

[Blues Man]

right and wrong as concepts are a human invention. They did not exist before our minds were capable of the intellectual processes that could consider them.

This is an ontological claim of ultimate origin.

and?

 

[ding]

you really don't think about what you write you just speculate that I am trying to make a profit from killing animals

That's insane. It never crossed my mind.

what is that other than an assumption about me?

That you behave like most human beings.

So why don't you tell me what elicits strong feelings from me?

I already did.

And I never said eating animals was wrong did I? I said I don't eat animals. Why do you have to put your value judgements on my behavior?

So you shouldn't have a problem answering the question I asked. Do you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products?

And It's not my place to tell other people what they should do or to judge them for things they do. That seems to be what you want me to do so you can try for some gotcha moment.

I didn't ask you to tell others anything. I asked you if you believe it is wrong for others to eat animal products? Do you?

and I see you have stared with the name calling again so it seems that you haven't "discovered" the rules of logic yet because you fall to avoid the ad hominem trap

Is it wrong to call someone who is stupid dummy?

I have explained why behaviors and attitudes evolve in a society and it has nothing to do with some magic code floating around for people to discover. In fact it's even simpler than that because there is no need to assign some supernatural force as responsible for it.

And I have explained why you are wrong.

Our behaviors have evolved so as to best encourage the survival of the human race.

Yes, for logical reasons because errors couldn't stand. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

 

[Blues Man]

There are no moral absolutes.

Why do you keep contradicting yourself?

In any event, that's not your position at all! Your position is that no moral absolutes exist except the moral absolute that moral absolutes don't exist. Hence, the moral absolute that no moral absolutes exist is absolutely false. You're still trying to rationalize an absurdity, i.e., an inherently contradictory, self-negating assertion which proves the opposite is necessarily true.

We've gone over this before. Why do you repeat a falsified argument?

Let's take killing.

Either killing is wrong or it isn't[,] right?

Right.

crickets chirping

It seems we as a society can't even agree on that.

Really?

If a person kills my wife. . . .

Was your wife trying to murder him, or did he murder her?

Saying there are no moral absolutes isn't a moral absolute in itself .

Morals exist I never said they didn't I just said morals are a human concept and arose from the human mind not from some other source.


And maybe you should quote my entire post and not cherry pick bits and pieces of it so you can address the examples in context as they relate to the subject

 

[ding]

no you didn't all you did was say they were discovered,

Which proves they exist apart from man. Are you stupid?

And when humans no longer exist our ideas of logic, math , music or whatever will only endure for as long as the records of those things we have made endure.

The concepts would continue ti exist because they exist independent of man. Now you are just going around in circles because you are upset.

We are impermanent our thoughts are impermanent.

I'm sure you believe that is true but you are wrong. Is this what we are going to keep doing.

You don't seem to realize that what we call music might not be music to another form of life that evolved differently from us. So there is no universal code for music floating around in the ether.

What you call it doesn't matter. All music is waiting to be discovered.

What we call morals are not universal they are human because they were conceived by the human mind and apply only to humans.

Sure they are. If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

The universe has been in existence for so long compared to us mere humans that we don't even make a mark on the timeline. To quote a song "We are but dust in the wind"

The universe is an intelligence producing machine. Why else do you think it was created?