Where do moral laws come from?

[BreezeWood]

You can't state how you came up with the age of consent at 18, after being asked numerous times. What is the moral standard and how did you tap into its' existence? Those are glaring omissions and would have cleared everything up in your first post.

I explained it very well. 18 was a concession to your legal positivism worldview. My standard was higher.

I see you are dodging my question. We both know why you are doing it too. You know it proves my point that there are universal moral standards.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

your problem is you do not understand the above can be accomplished be either good or evil.

Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good.

.

Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good.

as evidenced, that also is above your head.

I don't believe it is. Darkness is not extant. Cold is not extant. Neither is evil.

.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

your problem is you do not understand the above can be accomplished by either good or evil.

Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good.

I don't believe it is. Darkness is not extant. Cold is not extant. Neither is evil.

hard to believe anyone would believe your statements, you've become drunk bing, time for detox ...

 

[PK1]

Okay, first of all, "consciousness" isn't matter. Morals aren't necessarily "evolution" of consciousness.

I believe "consciousness" is matter.
Do you know of any consciousness without neurons?
.

Do you know of any consciousness without neurons?

ALERT - another Flora hater ....

I am not a "Flora hater". How do you conclude that?
I love nature!
Yes, one can say flora have "awareness" reflecting evolutionary patterns for survival, but that is not the common definition of "consciousness" that i am using.
How do YOU know flora have "consciousness"?
.

 

[BreezeWood]

Okay, first of all, "consciousness" isn't matter. Morals aren't necessarily "evolution" of consciousness.

I believe "consciousness" is matter.
Do you know of any consciousness without neurons?
.

Do you know of any consciousness without neurons?

ALERT - another Flora hater ....

I am not a "Flora hater". How do you conclude that?
I love nature!
Yes, one can say flora have "awareness" reflecting evolutionary patterns for survival, but that is not the common definition of "consciousness" that i am using.
How do YOU know flora have "consciousness"?
.

.

Yes, one can say flora have "awareness" reflecting evolutionary patterns for survival, but that is not the common definition of "consciousness" that i am using.
How do YOU know flora have "consciousness"?

ALERT ... ALERT ... ALERT - (another) - - - - FLORA HATER - - - -

but that is not the common definition of "consciousness" that i am using.

oh, we get it, you believe a brain is "required" to have consciousness ...

How do YOU know flora have "consciousness"

.

lets have a vote, you or the plant.


* case closed.

 

[ding]

Before there was matter there was consciousness.

You know that how?
Or, are you making up stuff/definitions to suit your fancy/fantasy?
.

Because the laws of nature existed before space and time. Which means that music existed before space and time; mathematics existed before space and time; and science existed before space and time; and were realized when the universe became self aware. Furthermore, consciousness of the self aware universe is evolving due to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

 

[Boss]

Because the laws of nature existed before space and time. Which means that music existed before space and time; mathematics existed before space and time; and science existed before space and time; and were realized when the universe became self aware. Furthermore, consciousness of the self aware universe is evolving due to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

You must be missing some understanding of what space and time is or what "exist" means. That's all I can surmise. Physical things and the rules, laws, boundaries and possibilities related to them, cannot exist without space to exist and time in which to exist. It's like claiming there is a cup of water on the desk when there is neither a cup or water. Now, there might BE a "metaphysical" cup of water... but we can't prove or disprove that. I have no problem with your beliefs but you continue to promote your beliefs as if they are proven facts. That's where the argument comes in here.

 

[ding]

Because the laws of nature existed before space and time. Which means that music existed before space and time; mathematics existed before space and time; and science existed before space and time; and were realized when the universe became self aware. Furthermore, consciousness of the self aware universe is evolving due to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

You must be missing some understanding of what space and time is or what "exist" means. That's all I can surmise. Physical things and the rules, laws, boundaries and possibilities related to them, cannot exist without space to exist and time in which to exist. It's like claiming there is a cup of water on the desk when there is neither a cup or water. Now, there might BE a "metaphysical" cup of water... but we can't prove or disprove that. I have no problem with your beliefs but you continue to promote your beliefs as if they are proven facts. That's where the argument comes in here.

How are mathematics, music and science physical? How are the laws of quantum mechanics physical? Is a belief physical? Is an idea physical?

intangible: unable to be touched or grasped; not having physical presence.

 

[Boss]

Because the laws of nature existed before space and time. Which means that music existed before space and time; mathematics existed before space and time; and science existed before space and time; and were realized when the universe became self aware. Furthermore, consciousness of the self aware universe is evolving due to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

You must be missing some understanding of what space and time is or what "exist" means. That's all I can surmise. Physical things and the rules, laws, boundaries and possibilities related to them, cannot exist without space to exist and time in which to exist. It's like claiming there is a cup of water on the desk when there is neither a cup or water. Now, there might BE a "metaphysical" cup of water... but we can't prove or disprove that. I have no problem with your beliefs but you continue to promote your beliefs as if they are proven facts. That's where the argument comes in here.

How are mathematics, music and science physical? How are the laws of quantum mechanics physical? Is a belief physical? Is an idea physical?

intangible: unable to be touched or grasped; not having physical presence.

Well math applies to the physical universe, music is physical sound waves in a physical universe, science is the study of physical nature. There are no "laws of quantum mechanics" there is just "quantum mechanics" and much is unknown about the theories. Beliefs and ideas don't exist without a mind to think and conceive them.... they are not floating around out in the ether waiting for a head to land in.

 

[Dr Grump]

Because the laws of nature existed before space and time. Which means that music existed before space and time; mathematics existed before space and time; and science existed before space and time; and were realized when the universe became self aware. Furthermore, consciousness of the self aware universe is evolving due to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

You must be missing some understanding of what space and time is or what "exist" means. That's all I can surmise. Physical things and the rules, laws, boundaries and possibilities related to them, cannot exist without space to exist and time in which to exist. It's like claiming there is a cup of water on the desk when there is neither a cup or water. Now, there might BE a "metaphysical" cup of water... but we can't prove or disprove that. I have no problem with your beliefs but you continue to promote your beliefs as if they are proven facts. That's where the argument comes in here.

he's doing it on another thread, too....I think Ding thinks 'belief' is a synonym for 'fact'....

 

[BreezeWood]

Before there was matter there was consciousness.

You know that how?
Or, are you making up stuff/definitions to suit your fancy/fantasy?
.

Because the laws of nature existed before space and time. Which means that music existed before space and time; mathematics existed before space and time; and science existed before space and time; and were realized when the universe became self aware. Furthermore, consciousness of the self aware universe is evolving due to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

.

Furthermore, consciousness of the self aware universe is evolving ...

is this Earth or have you knowledge of other living beings, and do you still believe our planet is the center of the universe.

 

[ding]

Because the laws of nature existed before space and time. Which means that music existed before space and time; mathematics existed before space and time; and science existed before space and time; and were realized when the universe became self aware. Furthermore, consciousness of the self aware universe is evolving due to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

You must be missing some understanding of what space and time is or what "exist" means. That's all I can surmise. Physical things and the rules, laws, boundaries and possibilities related to them, cannot exist without space to exist and time in which to exist. It's like claiming there is a cup of water on the desk when there is neither a cup or water. Now, there might BE a "metaphysical" cup of water... but we can't prove or disprove that. I have no problem with your beliefs but you continue to promote your beliefs as if they are proven facts. That's where the argument comes in here.

How are mathematics, music and science physical? How are the laws of quantum mechanics physical? Is a belief physical? Is an idea physical?

intangible: unable to be touched or grasped; not having physical presence.

Well math applies to the physical universe, music is physical sound waves in a physical universe, science is the study of physical nature. There are no "laws of quantum mechanics" there is just "quantum mechanics" and much is unknown about the theories. Beliefs and ideas don't exist without a mind to think and conceive them.... they are not floating around out in the ether waiting for a head to land in.

Then don't believe it. But I believe it because everything came from something. That something is the laws of nature which existed before space and time. The laws existed before space and time so the everything the laws allow existed before space and time. The only distinction between the two is timing and form.

 

[ScientificHumanism]

"Where do moral laws come from?"
Well, I sure HOPE they don't come from the Bible, or else it would be very moral today to kill gays, take slaves (Jesus even accepted slavery), treat women like dirt, etc.

 

[ding]

"Where do moral laws come from?"
Well, I sure HOPE they don't come from the Bible, or else it would be very moral today to kill gays, take slaves (Jesus even accepted slavery), treat women like dirt, etc.

Getting you to accept there are moral laws in the first place is a good start.

 

[Boss]

Then don't believe it. But I believe it because everything came from something. That something is the laws of nature which existed before space and time. The laws existed before space and time so the everything the laws allow existed before space and time. The only distinction between the two is timing and form.

You can certainly argue that you believe the Creator of the laws of nature existed before space and time... I support that belief but it's a faith-based belief. You cannot argue the laws of something exist before the thing itself exists because that's illogical. You can SAY whatever you want to.

I can SAY there is a law against Supercalifragilisticsm! You will ask, what the hell is Supercalifragilisticsm? I can reply... we don't know, it hasn't been invented yet.... but there is a law against it! Does that make ANY rational sense? Of course it doesn't, it's just silly nonsense. That's NOT an argument.

 

[ding]

Then don't believe it. But I believe it because everything came from something. That something is the laws of nature which existed before space and time. The laws existed before space and time so the everything the laws allow existed before space and time. The only distinction between the two is timing and form.

You can certainly argue that you believe the Creator of the laws of nature existed before space and time... I support that belief but it's a faith-based belief. You cannot argue the laws of something exist before the thing itself exists because that's illogical. You can SAY whatever you want to.

I can SAY there is a law against Supercalifragilisticsm! You will ask, what the hell is Supercalifragilisticsm? I can reply... we don't know, it hasn't been invented yet.... but there is a law against it! Does that make ANY rational sense? Of course it doesn't, it's just silly nonsense. That's NOT an argument.

It's not my argument that the laws of nature existed before space and time. It is the argument of the leading cosmologists and physicists. If quantum mechanics were responsible for the creation of space and time there had to be quantum laws of nature and if quantum laws of nature do not violate conservation laws then there had to be conservation laws. If space and time were created by natural processes and these are the laws which govern those natural processes, then these laws must have existed before space and time could be created

 

[Boss]

It's not my argument that the laws of nature existed before space and time. It is the argument of the leading cosmologists and physicists. If quantum mechanics were responsible for the creation of space and time there had to be quantum laws of nature and if quantum laws of nature do not violate conservation laws then there had to be conservation laws. If space and time were created by natural processes and these are the laws which govern those natural processes, then these laws must have existed before space and time could be created

Then you arguing there is no such thing as God and physical nature created itself. I don't believe that and I don't think science has proven it. Sorry.

 

[ding]

It's not my argument that the laws of nature existed before space and time. It is the argument of the leading cosmologists and physicists. If quantum mechanics were responsible for the creation of space and time there had to be quantum laws of nature and if quantum laws of nature do not violate conservation laws then there had to be conservation laws. If space and time were created by natural processes and these are the laws which govern those natural processes, then these laws must have existed before space and time could be created

Then you arguing there is no such thing as God and physical nature created itself. I don't believe that and I don't think science has proven it. Sorry.

I'm not arguing that. I am arguing how He did it. I am arguing that this proves a first cause.

 

[Boss]

I'm not arguing that. I am arguing how He did it. I am arguing that this proves a first cause.

That's exactly what you are arguing. You are saying the laws of nature (physics) already existed and they created the universe. The first cause is physics and laws of nature which you argue already existed.

MY argument is, the laws of nature didn't exist and couldn't exist without a space and time in which TO exist. They were the product of creation by our Creator a the instant space and time were also created. The universe requires a creator because physical nature cannot create itself. Likewise, the laws of nature cannot create themselves.

You are also completely ignoring what "exist" means. How can something be in a state of existing if there is no passage of time? If there is no spacial placeholder? The only "existing" you can possibly mean is metaphysical. In the mind of the Creator. That is the only context in which I can support what you believe and that's not a scientific argument, it is our faith-based belief.

 

[Mudda]

I'm not arguing that. I am arguing how He did it. I am arguing that this proves a first cause.

That's exactly what you are arguing. You are saying the laws of nature (physics) already existed and they created the universe. The first cause is physics and laws of nature which you argue already existed.

MY argument is, the laws of nature didn't exist and couldn't exist without a space and time in which TO exist. They were the product of creation by our Creator a the instant space and time were also created. The universe requires a creator because physical nature cannot create itself. Likewise, the laws of nature cannot create themselves.

You are also completely ignoring what "exist" means. How can something be in a state of existing if there is no passage of time? If there is no spacial placeholder? The only "existing" you can possibly mean is metaphysical. In the mind of the Creator. That is the only context in which I can support what you believe and that's not a scientific argument, it is our faith-based belief.

The 2 most confused people on this board are going at it, this should be fun.

 

[Boss]

The 2 most confused people on this board are going at it, this should be fun.

Jeesh... you are SO boring man. Most trolls at least make an attempt at being interesting, you don't even try. My bellybutton lint is more interesting than you.

Did you have any actual comment on the thread OP or are you just dropping in to flame and harass as usual? Never mind, that was a rhetorical question.

 

[Mudda]

The 2 most confused people on this board are going at it, this should be fun.

Jeesh... you are SO boring man. Most trolls at least make an attempt at being interesting, you don't even try. My bellybutton lint is more interesting than you.

Did you have any actual comment on the thread OP or are you just dropping in to flame and harass as usual? Never mind, that was a rhetorical question.

Trying to interject between you and ding is not only futile, but would break up the fun. Now go report me again so you can get my posts erased. I know it only means that you think that I'm right. But go on, I'll be back.