The thought of Aliens is intriguing, even to me, but it is not biblical. [/quote]
Neither is landing on the moon.[/quote]Landing on the moon does not involve beings created in the image of God, their state before Him or their relation to the incarnation, death, burial, resurrection and ascension of the second person of the Godhead. Landing on the moon is the theological equivalent of early European explorers (or the Norsemen) landing on a new continent. There was no chance of finding morally cognizant non Adamic beings there either.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
If I believe that there is an uncaused cause that cannot be known (don’t know if it’s a thing, being, framework that’s always been), and I believe that moral law comes from this uncaused cause in a similar way the laws of physics do, then what does that make me? Is that deism or just a more faith oriented type of atheism? Just a question of definitions really.[/quote]
We’re talking about universal moral law, above and beyond mortal opinion. The sole purpose of their existence seemingly to differentiate–good, or evil–between the actions and thoughts of intelligent and self-aware creatures. How could such discernment be made without an intelligence to make it? Further, what is a law if it is absent? Why claim the existence of universal moral law, yet deny a universal authority to deal with trespass? Why claim something a universal moral law if it’s law is never felt? Where is the justice in these laws if they, even in the final reckoning of the human race, will never hold power over us? Judgement requires a will and intelligence in order to judge. Universal moral laws need a univerasl author.
From this, we must claim at least some knowledge about this author’s character. After all, we’re making the claim that this author is the source of moral law. And, in the first place, what those moral laws even are. A claim as to what pleases and displeases the author. But then, if we’re defining those moral laws, therefore, describing the character/nature of the author, from what revelation do we speak from? It is a claim to having faith in some sort of deposit of revelation. Apostolic and textual? Purely one or the other? Something new?[/quote]
Faith is not necessary. Universal moral “laws” do not exist. An author for these laws is not necessary.
Seriously, my atheist friends here… don’t engage him at his own game. You can’t argue your way out of it. [/quote]
Now that you admit that your evolutionary morality isn’t morality at all; how do you deduce natural rights from your evolutionary ethic. How do you defend that mass rape isn’t in the interest of evolution when it is the most successful method man has come up to spread his genes up to date(genghis khan for example).[/quote]
I don’t deduce any natural rights.
And, it should be plainly obvious that on a historical scale, strategies like mass rape are not successful. I could be wrong, but it doesn’t seem like the best idea for a long-term, stable society… which tends to be better for the entire human genome.
I’ve stated here before, and I will again: What we evolve into in the next hundred, five hundred, thousand years or whatever increment you pick, may appear repugnant to our current sensibilities. We may succeed. We may fail… we may be extinct with the next hundred years. In many ways, it’s hard to say.
Evolution can be brutal, but wanting comforting answers and finding those answers to be true are two different things. [/quote]
Since you can’t deduce natural rights or say that mass rape is wrong as an evolutionary tool http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html from an evolutionary perspective. Do believe in morality and that morals come from somewhere or are they just subjective “values” you hold that contradict the logical conclusion of evolutionary ethics.[/quote]
Define the logical conclusions of “evolutionary ethics.”
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
If I believe that there is an uncaused cause that cannot be known (don’t know if it’s a thing, being, framework that’s always been), and I believe that moral law comes from this uncaused cause in a similar way the laws of physics do, then what does that make me? Is that deism or just a more faith oriented type of atheism? Just a question of definitions really.[/quote]
We’re talking about universal moral law, above and beyond mortal opinion. The sole purpose of their existence seemingly to differentiate–good, or evil–between the actions and thoughts of intelligent and self-aware creatures. How could such discernment be made without an intelligence to make it? Further, what is a law if it is absent? Why claim the existence of universal moral law, yet deny a universal authority to deal with trespass? Why claim something a universal moral law if it’s law is never felt? Where is the justice in these laws if they, even in the final reckoning of the human race, will never hold power over us? Judgement requires a will and intelligence in order to judge. Universal moral laws need a univerasl author.
From this, we must claim at least some knowledge about this author’s character. After all, we’re making the claim that this author is the source of moral law. And, in the first place, what those moral laws even are. A claim as to what pleases and displeases the author. But then, if we’re defining those moral laws, therefore, describing the character/nature of the author, from what revelation do we speak from? It is a claim to having faith in some sort of deposit of revelation. Apostolic and textual? Purely one or the other? Something new?[/quote]
Faith is not necessary. Universal moral “laws” do not exist. An author for these laws is not necessary.
Seriously, my atheist friends here… don’t engage him at his own game. You can’t argue your way out of it. [/quote]
Now that you admit that your evolutionary morality isn’t morality at all; how do you deduce natural rights from your evolutionary ethic. How do you defend that mass rape isn’t in the interest of evolution when it is the most successful method man has come up to spread his genes up to date(genghis khan for example).[/quote]
I don’t deduce any natural rights.
And, it should be plainly obvious that on a historical scale, strategies like mass rape are not successful. I could be wrong, but it doesn’t seem like the best idea for a long-term, stable society… which tends to be better for the entire human genome.
I’ve stated here before, and I will again: What we evolve into in the next hundred, five hundred, thousand years or whatever increment you pick, may appear repugnant to our current sensibilities. We may succeed. We may fail… we may be extinct with the next hundred years. In many ways, it’s hard to say.
Evolution can be brutal, but wanting comforting answers and finding those answers to be true are two different things. [/quote]
Since you can’t deduce natural rights or say that mass rape is wrong as an evolutionary tool http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html from an evolutionary perspective. Do believe in morality and that morals come from somewhere or are they just subjective “values” you hold that contradict the logical conclusion of evolutionary ethics.[/quote]
Define the logical conclusions of “evolutionary ethics.”
[/quote]
I am only evolutionary successful if I spread my genes, for the human species as a whole to be more successful eugenics programs to improve our evolutionary fitness letting only healthy people reproduce in such a way that maximization of genetic variation is the result etc etc …
The thought of Aliens is intriguing, even to me, but it is not biblical. [/quote]
Neither is landing on the moon.[/quote]
Lol. When I first opened this up since AP 2.0 I realised we were still on the prime mover/whatever argument. I am glad I scrolled down farther to read such hilarity. As the Church’s top astrologer (I think that is what he is) said, “if they have arms and legs, I’ll baptize them.”
The thought of Aliens is intriguing, even to me, but it is not biblical. [/quote]
Neither is landing on the moon.[/quote]Landing on the moon does not involve beings created in the image of God, their state before Him or their relation to the incarnation, death, burial, resurrection and ascension of the second person of the Godhead. Landing on the moon is the theological equivalent of early European explorers (or the Norsemen) landing on a new continent. There was no chance of finding morally cognizant non Adamic beings there either.[/quote]
As C.S. Lewis wrote about, maybe they are in a uncorrupted human form, non-fallen. Either way, baptize 'em!
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
If I believe that there is an uncaused cause that cannot be known (don’t know if it’s a thing, being, framework that’s always been), and I believe that moral law comes from this uncaused cause in a similar way the laws of physics do, then what does that make me? Is that deism or just a more faith oriented type of atheism? Just a question of definitions really.[/quote]
We’re talking about universal moral law, above and beyond mortal opinion. The sole purpose of their existence seemingly to differentiate–good, or evil–between the actions and thoughts of intelligent and self-aware creatures. How could such discernment be made without an intelligence to make it? Further, what is a law if it is absent? Why claim the existence of universal moral law, yet deny a universal authority to deal with trespass? Why claim something a universal moral law if it’s law is never felt? Where is the justice in these laws if they, even in the final reckoning of the human race, will never hold power over us? Judgement requires a will and intelligence in order to judge. Universal moral laws need a univerasl author.
From this, we must claim at least some knowledge about this author’s character. After all, we’re making the claim that this author is the source of moral law. And, in the first place, what those moral laws even are. A claim as to what pleases and displeases the author. But then, if we’re defining those moral laws, therefore, describing the character/nature of the author, from what revelation do we speak from? It is a claim to having faith in some sort of deposit of revelation. Apostolic and textual? Purely one or the other? Something new?[/quote]
Faith is not necessary. Universal moral “laws” do not exist. An author for these laws is not necessary.
Seriously, my atheist friends here… don’t engage him at his own game. You can’t argue your way out of it. [/quote]
Now that you admit that your evolutionary morality isn’t morality at all; how do you deduce natural rights from your evolutionary ethic. How do you defend that mass rape isn’t in the interest of evolution when it is the most successful method man has come up to spread his genes up to date(genghis khan for example).[/quote]
I don’t deduce any natural rights.
And, it should be plainly obvious that on a historical scale, strategies like mass rape are not successful. I could be wrong, but it doesn’t seem like the best idea for a long-term, stable society… which tends to be better for the entire human genome.
I’ve stated here before, and I will again: What we evolve into in the next hundred, five hundred, thousand years or whatever increment you pick, may appear repugnant to our current sensibilities. We may succeed. We may fail… we may be extinct with the next hundred years. In many ways, it’s hard to say.
Evolution can be brutal, but wanting comforting answers and finding those answers to be true are two different things. [/quote]
Since you can’t deduce natural rights or say that mass rape is wrong as an evolutionary tool http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html from an evolutionary perspective. Do believe in morality and that morals come from somewhere or are they just subjective “values” you hold that contradict the logical conclusion of evolutionary ethics.[/quote]
Define the logical conclusions of “evolutionary ethics.”
[/quote]
I am only evolutionary successful if I spread my genes, for the human species as a whole to be more successful eugenics programs to improve our evolutionary fitness letting only healthy people reproduce in such a way that maximization of genetic variation is the result etc etc …[/quote]
You are conflating evolutionary ethics with evolutionary morality and mixing in an ideology of “survival of the fittest.”
Evolutionary morality simply proposes that morals emerged from evolved cognitive tools.
Maximization of genetic variation as a goal would actually call for preserving as many lives as possible so that more genomes have a chance to reproduce. This would be the opposite of eugenics programs which typically call for a reduction in genomes to favor more “desirable ones.”
The thought of Aliens is intriguing, even to me, but it is not biblical. [/quote]
Neither is landing on the moon.[/quote]Landing on the moon does not involve beings created in the image of God, their state before Him or their relation to the incarnation, death, burial, resurrection and ascension of the second person of the Godhead. Landing on the moon is the theological equivalent of early European explorers (or the Norsemen) landing on a new continent. There was no chance of finding morally cognizant non Adamic beings there either.[/quote]
As C.S. Lewis wrote about, maybe they are in a uncorrupted human form, non-fallen. Either way, baptize 'em![/quote]I am pretty sure that there are no such beings. I see all of creation falling with Adam in scripture.
The thought of Aliens is intriguing, even to me, but it is not biblical. [/quote]
Neither is landing on the moon.[/quote]Landing on the moon does not involve beings created in the image of God, their state before Him or their relation to the incarnation, death, burial, resurrection and ascension of the second person of the Godhead. Landing on the moon is the theological equivalent of early European explorers (or the Norsemen) landing on a new continent. There was no chance of finding morally cognizant non Adamic beings there either.[/quote]
Just sayin’
God could have quite a few planets on the go, in distant parts of the galaxies. Who are you to presume that he would deign to tell you of all his creation? For all you know, he’s testing humans out under certain conditions, and another planet is being tested under different conditions.
God’s not a full disclosure type of being, so its entirely possible that he’s got thousands of planets where’s testing stuff out.
NOTE: I don’t believe in this. But if I were to believe that a personal god exists, I’d think it entirely possible that he’d not be content with just the one planet.
[quote]forbes wrote:
If all life on earth, including plants, animals, fungi, bacteria etc evolved from a single celled organism (as the evolutionary theory goes) then what are the odds that of all the “animals” that developed, humans are the ONLY one’s with such a high intellectual ability and moral reasoning?[/quote]
Now that’s a damn interesting question.
I think a combination of factors contributed to man’s ascension. Among them: Vocal chords with enough range to allow complex language to develop. Hands to make and manipulate tools. We also live on land, making it possible to use fire for cooking food, forging tools, etc.
The smartest dolphin could rival Einstein for all we know, but with limited language and no tools, his possible accomplishments will be limited. Elephants are know for being highly intelligent, altruistic and keep cemeteries for their deceased, but here too, with limited language and little possibility of tool use (their trunk will never match two hands) intellectual development is unlikely to progress very far.
I think that simple brainpower is not sufficient to really ascend. You need to be able to communicate with other members of your specie and you need to be able to record in some way the best ideas of each generation, so that you don’t go in circles reinventing the sames things all the time. I can’t think of a single civilization, no matter how ancient, who didn’t have some form of record keeping.
Your question is slightly inexact in that there was one other specie that had similar development: Neanderthal man. They went extinct about 30,000 years ago but had a comparable mental capacity as homo sapiens. It’s debatable whether they count as an entirely separate specie, since interbreeding with homo sapiens was possible and occurred historically; but it would be an example of parallel mental development. They had similar language and tool-use possibilities.
The last factor is probably that the first specie to “get really smart” gets to out-compete all the others. Being smart means you figure out how to get and keep all the best resources for yourself and your “tribe”. Going from animal intelligence to man-like intellect when man is already around is probably not going to happen. Ever.
It’s a bit like the question of why life started once, but that we don’t see a different life (not DNA based for example) spontaneously appear. Maybe it does and has done many times before, but simple self-replicators cannot compete with the well established life already covering the planet. So it quickly disappears.
[quote]forbes wrote:
If all life on earth, including plants, animals, fungi, bacteria etc evolved from a single celled organism (as the evolutionary theory goes) then what are the odds that of all the “animals” that developed, humans are the ONLY one’s with such a high intellectual ability and moral reasoning?[/quote]
Now that’s a damn interesting question.
I think a combination of factors contributed to man’s ascension. Among them: Vocal chords with enough range to allow complex language to develop. Hands to make and manipulate tools. We also live on land, making it possible to use fire for cooking food, forging tools, etc.
The smartest dolphin could rival Einstein for all we know, but with limited language and no tools, his possible accomplishments will be limited. Elephants are know for being highly intelligent, altruistic and keep cemeteries for their deceased, but here too, with limited language and little possibility of tool use (their trunk will never match two hands) intellectual development is unlikely to progress very far.
I think that simple brainpower is not sufficient to really ascend. You need to be able to communicate with other members of your specie and you need to be able to record in some way the best ideas of each generation, so that you don’t go in circles reinventing the sames things all the time. I can’t think of a single civilization, no matter how ancient, who didn’t have some form of record keeping.
Your question is slightly inexact in that there was one other specie that had similar development: Neanderthal man. They went extinct about 30,000 years ago but had a comparable mental capacity as homo sapiens. It’s debatable whether they count as an entirely separate specie, since interbreeding with homo sapiens was possible and occurred historically; but it would be an example of parallel mental development. They had similar language and tool-use possibilities.
The last factor is probably that the first specie to “get really smart” gets to out-compete all the others. Being smart means you figure out how to get and keep all the best resources for yourself and your “tribe”. Going from animal intelligence to man-like intellect when man is already around is probably not going to happen. Ever.
It’s a bit like the question of why life started once, but that we don’t see a different life (not DNA based for example) spontaneously appear. Maybe it does and has done many times before, but simple self-replicators cannot compete with the well established life already covering the planet. So it quickly disappears.
[/quote]
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
First of all you are misconstruing Chaos theory and quantum mechanics incorrectly, both theories are logically consistent in and of themselves and both attempt to describe what we can infer and deduce from nature and this hangs on the assumption that we can describe and perceive the world rationally. Highly sensitive initial conditions or having to describe the electron as a probabilistic wave function due to the mathematically deduced Heisenberg uncertainty principle doesn’t do away with the assumption that we can perceive and make statements about our world with any sense of intelligibility; otherwise there would be no value to the scientific method. Einstein has said “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” which makes perfect sense from his and most materialist’s world view.[/quote]
I may have misused Chaos Theory here, but I certainly didn’t misuse Quantum Mechanics. The observer effect & the inability to determine the exact time at which an electron decays have both been described as irrational… by none other that Einstein himself.
Back to what the interviewee had to say though… he said “All science is based on a fundamental faith that the universe is rational and intelligible.” This is just false. I’ll give you another example: Roger Penrose, for decades held that what was before the big bang was unintelligible and irrational to physics. In fact, this was the dominant position on cosmology for at least 20 years.
Science attempts to explain the universe with rationale and logic, but this does not require that the universe itself be rational.
My point in addressing this statement of his is to show that one of the underpinnings of his argument is VERY arguable. He treats it as if it is incontrovertible truth… which is silly.
Are you serious?
Natural selection is not an intelligent process. Why would I attempt to argue from the position that it is? That’s just silly. Of course evolution or natural selection don’t care… neither have an intelligence with which to care. Natural selection is nothing more than a crucible that rational intelligence happens to be suited to overcoming.
And, as I mentioned to someone else earlier in this thread, the argument that we can’t trust our cognitive tools such as rationality can go any number of ways.
How do you know that you even exist?
How do you know that what you see as the color red is the same thing that I see as the color red?
How do you know that you have not been tricked into having faith in the Devil?
When you (or Wfifer) bring this in to the argument and apply it selectively to rationality as a tool of evolution, you are being willfully, selectively ignorant.
And, do you care to defend his statement that evolutionists perceive their thoughts as no more than “the random motion of atoms” in their brains? As I mentioned in my first response, this is a pretty blatant straw man.
Doesn’t have much to do with what he brought up??? Are you kidding? I was responding specifically to what he said in that interview… quotes and all.
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
<<< But if I were to believe that a personal god exists, I’d think it entirely possible that he’d not be content with just the one planet.[/quote]I might too if it weren’t for the fact that I believe I’m fairly certain He actually has told us that He is.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Wow, one God hater agreeing with another one. It’s truly amazing the things that you can see on this board. Jaw dropping.[/quote]
Hating something that doesn’t exist makes no sense.
Being annoyed by brain dead idiots who want to enact bronze-age goat-herders moral laws in modern society and feel justified telling others how to live based on old patriarchal claptrap, now that’s another story.
Fun fact: A “jaw dropping” is what comes out whenever you speak up.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Wow, one God hater agreeing with another one. It’s truly amazing the things that you can see on this board. Jaw dropping.[/quote]
Hating something that doesn’t exist makes no sense.
Being annoyed by brain dead idiots who want to enact bronze-age goat-herders moral laws in modern society and feel justified telling others how to live based on old patriarchal claptrap, now that’s another story.
Fun fact: A “jaw dropping” is what comes out whenever you speak up.
[/quote]
Wow, pookie you are so, so profound. The way you turn a phrase well, I’m just lucky to be here to read it.
(I thought I would do this before chief sycophant and fellow God hater forlife, had the chance - Personally I don’t think you’re any closer to the truth, or any more clever than the rest of the atheists on the board. Proven once again by your above post. But don’t let that stop you from trying…Oh that’s right it won’t.)