[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What internal value do you speak of? Both of those statements are equally unscientific.[/quote]
As I already said, creating meaning or value out of something isn’t a scientific process per se. The human brain operating to create meaning is a biological process, but the meaning itself does not physically exist in the universe and thus is out of the domain of science.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
That’s exactly what you are doing talking about the natural forces of love and morality.[/quote]
No duh. The difference is that unlike religion, the discussion of morality doesn’t require making claims about the objective universe. Keep religion in its own realm and out of the realm of science, and I have no qualms with it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
What internal value do you speak of? Both of those statements are equally unscientific.
As I already said, creating meaning or value out of something isn’t a scientific process per se. The human brain operating to create meaning is a biological process, but the meaning itself does not physically exist in the universe and thus is out of the domain of science.[/quote]
Please explain how extrapolation meaning is a biological process. You are attempting to use scientific words in an entirely unscientific philosophy.
So now things can exist but be outside of physical reality and beyond the probing of science.
So you’re beliefs cannot be disproved by science because they are “out of it’s domain”, but my belief in god isn’t?
You are more than just not an atheist, I think you are a religious nut.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Doesn’t change existence whether he does or not so it’s an entirely unscientific approach to testing for existence.
I do not think god can be put in a box and tested with defined rules.[/quote]
Quite beating around the bush. Recovery from an illness is an observable and documentable fact. So answer the question:
Does your god heal people more often than expected by chance alone, or not?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
That’s exactly what you are doing talking about the natural forces of love and morality.
No duh. The difference is that unlike religion, the discussion of morality doesn’t require making claims about the objective universe. Keep religion in its own realm and out of the realm of science, and I have no qualms with it.[/quote]
You are saying you can internally know and create and decifer right and wrong because you know it in your heart, but if I know god is real because my heart tells me so, I’m and idiot?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Doesn’t change existence whether he does or not so it’s an entirely unscientific approach to testing for existence.
I do not think god can be put in a box and tested with defined rules.
Quite beating around the bush. Recovery from an illness is an observable and documentable fact. So answer the question:
Does your god heal people more often than expected by chance alone, or not?[/quote]
Yes, I believe he does. But I can’t say he wouldn’t be offended by such an experiment and heal those who participated. Something about not testing him.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So now things can exist but be outside of physical reality and beyond the probing of science.
[/quote]
Does the color blue exist in the physical universe?
Does the Russian language exist in the physical universe?
Does algebra exist in the physical universe?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
So now things can exist but be outside of physical reality and beyond the probing of science.
Does the color blue exist in the physical universe?
Does the Russian language exist in the physical universe?
Does algebra exist in the physical universe?
[/quote]
Are any of those beyond the probing of science?
[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
They still could not be laws, because laws have guaranteed predicatble results. Morals don’t guarantee you anything.
How is that any different if you say the source is “god” rather than the universe? Do moral laws have guaranteed predictable results in one case but not in the other?[/quote]
You wrote “Why don’t you acknowledge the possibility that morals are part of the set of laws governing the universe? Just as with other laws like gravity, the presence of these laws doesn’t invoke or require a supernatural being.”
To which I pointed out that they can’t be like the laws you stated.
You then wrote
“By universality of moral laws, I wasn’t suggesting that people are forced to follow them. I was suggesting that following them tends to produce predictable positive results, and failing to follow them tends to produce predictable negative results.”
To which I pointed out that they still can’t be laws in the sense that your first post described.
It is different because you are saying that morals are some sort of a universal ordered procedure that originate outside of an originator(I.E. God).
You can claim you don’t need God for morals, but you can’t claim there is anything universal about them once you do. At that point they are determined by relative perception and societies acceptance.
You also lose the ability to claim moral superiority over others at that point. Since morals are no longer goverened by an originating body they are now goverened by the flavour of the day.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
They still could not be laws, because laws have guaranteed predicatble results. Morals don’t guarantee you anything.
How is that any different if you say the source is “god” rather than the universe? Do moral laws have guaranteed predictable results in one case but not in the other?
You wrote “Why don’t you acknowledge the possibility that morals are part of the set of laws governing the universe? Just as with other laws like gravity, the presence of these laws doesn’t invoke or require a supernatural being.”
To which I pointed out that they can’t be like the laws you stated.
You then wrote
“By universality of moral laws, I wasn’t suggesting that people are forced to follow them. I was suggesting that following them tends to produce predictable positive results, and failing to follow them tends to produce predictable negative results.”
To which I pointed out that they still can’t be laws in the sense that your first post described.
It is different because you are saying that morals are some sort of a universal ordered procedure that originate outside of an originator(I.E. God).
You can claim you don’t need God for morals, but you can’t claim there is anything universal about them once you do. At that point they are determined by relative perception and societies acceptance.
You also lose the ability to claim moral superiority over others at that point. Since morals are no longer goverened by an originating body they are now goverened by the flavour of the day.
[/quote]
That’s what I’ve been trying to get across for the last 10 pages or so.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You are saying you can internally know and create and decifer right and wrong because you know it in your heart, but if I know god is real because my heart tells me so, I’m and idiot?[/quote]
Defining a value is different from claiming a supernatural exists in the objective universe. The first is not the domain of science, but the second is.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
Well they do unto others as they do unto themselves, yet I’d hardly consider suicide bombing a “moral” thing to do.
But you consider them a good example of the average human being?
[/quote]
In the Middle East? Sure.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You are saying you can internally know and create and decifer right and wrong because you know it in your heart, but if I know god is real because my heart tells me so, I’m and idiot?
Defining a value is different from claiming a supernatural exists in the objective universe. The first is not the domain of science, but the second is.[/quote]
No, the question is not the value itself, but it’s origin.
I say we have morals because god made us that way. You say either, because you just know it in your heart, or forces of nature dictate it (depending on how you are asked). All 3 are equally idiotic in the eyes of science.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, I believe he does. But I can’t say he wouldn’t be offended by such an experiment and heal those who participated. Something about not testing him.[/quote]
So your god conveniently refuses to heal people or do anything else that could be measured, unless you don’t actually measure it?
Does that not strike you as just a bit of a stretch?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Does the color blue exist in the physical universe?
Does the Russian language exist in the physical universe?
Does algebra exist in the physical universe?
Are any of those beyond the probing of science?[/quote]
How can you probe something that doesn’t physically exist?
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
This does not mean that unexplained events come from God, unexplained events are just unexplained events. However, everything comes from something. I don’t buy the whole everything came in to existence from nothing.
You’re assuming the universe has a beginning. If you are willing to accept the infinite existence of a supernatural being, logic requires acknowledging that the universe (or a string of universes) may also be infinite.[/quote]
Whether from the point of contingency or with in the temporal realm, the argument works.
How is is that you arrived that the universe is infinite in time and space? How did it get that way?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, I believe he does. But I can’t say he wouldn’t be offended by such an experiment and heal those who participated. Something about not testing him.
So your god conveniently refuses to heal people or do anything else that could be measured, unless you don’t actually measure it?
Does that not strike you as just a bit of a stretch?[/quote]
No, I’m saying you can’t categorically state either way the way those studies do.
There are things in nature exactly like that though. The movement of matter according to quantum is that way. Matter travels as a wave, unless you try to measure it. If you measure it, it losses it’s wavelike properties.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Does the color blue exist in the physical universe?
Does the Russian language exist in the physical universe?
Does algebra exist in the physical universe?
Are any of those beyond the probing of science?
How can you probe something that doesn’t physically exist?[/quote]
So, you can’t probe photons? analyze language? physically verify algebra?
I don’t think you know very much about science.
You claim religions try and twist facts to justify their preconceived notions while twisted your failed grasp on science to justify yours.
You demand scientific proof and evidence for beliefs unlike your own while simultaneously excusing yours as beyond the scope of science.
And probably call religious folks hypocrites fairly often.
You have to have controllable measurable inputs to preform an experiment. This logic does not apply to god, or your spiritual beliefs. You are no better than the religious nuts you mock.