> "It's obvious that woman and children, as well as men, can become infected by evil and worthy of judgment."
I am not saying they can't. I am saying it is not possible as far as I can tell for every member of a society to have committed a crime worthy of the death penalty. It would take some sort of supernatural event I think for this to be possible. Like for someone to go around murdering every non-murderer or something like that.
> "I am not contending that morality is completely separated from human well being, only that it is not grounded there."
So then what is the relationship between morality and human well being?
"We have far too many examples of governmental and military leaders acting in what they considered to be moral ways, 'for the well being of humanity' "
Too many examples for what? The same things could occur regardless of what you think morality is or whether it comes from God. I don't see how the existence of people doing immoral things could inform your position on this question in any way.
> "That's why I'm claiming that there has to be an objective definition of human well being outside of someone's personal opinion or their political aspirations."
As am I. Like I said, I don't think the definitions of words are subject to individual opinion even though they are clearly not ordained by any outside force.
> "There isn't one."
So you agree that all morally good actions benefit human well being. So clearly this is the standard by which to judge the morality of an action. If it is detrimental to human well being we know it isn't morally good.
> "How does one define 'good'?"
Well, in terms of moral goodness, it is defined in terms of human well being. You appear to agree with this. If something is detrimental to human well being it is not good. This we agree on. So clearly it is not a matter of individual opinion what the word means. We agree that it is directly related to human well being.
> "Our consciences are aware of what goodness is...Therefore, goodness is grounded in the character of God"
This does not follow. The fact that our brains can be made to comprehend the meaning of words and to judge how actions impact human well being does not imply anything about God or give us any information about God.
"goodness is grounded in the character of God, not in human well-being, and is not independent from God"
Even if this is case, the only way by which we could judge actions would be with reference to human well being. You have agreed that good actions can never be detrimental to human well being. So even if this also happens to correspond with something about God we can still judge actions with reference to well being. We have no way of verifying anything about the nature of God or what he considers to be good. So the only way to actually judge an action based on the information available to us would be with reference to human well being.
> "Without an objective moral definition, why can't Hitler, or anyone, introduce their own definition?"
The same reason why you can't introduce your own definition of the word "apple." Or do you think the meanings of all words have to be defined by a god in order to avoid anyone inserting their own definition?
> "Nuremberg was only legitimate if there is a higher law at work."
Then we will never know if it was legitimate or not. Because we can only judge actions with reference to human well being. Hitler might have though he was benefitting human well being, but the people judging the Nuremberg trial disagreed. God's opinion is on the matter is impossible to determine. So regardless of whether there a "higher" law exists or not, the actions of Hitler and the Nazis were in fact judged with reference to human well being.
"In a world where there is only matter, there is no intrinsic worth"
I don't know what you mean by intrinsic worth. But as far as can be demonstrated, the world appears to be purely physical. Whether it is or not makes no difference to the way humans value human well being. The logical reason for doing so reduces to a desire to avoid pain and live a comfortable life. Is it illogical for a person to want this?
Board index ‹ Noah's Ark & the Flood
24 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: It HAS to be global flood
by jimwalton » Sat Mar 14, 2015 2:50 pm
Thanks for good conversation. We've gotten a bit off the path of Noah and the ark, haven't we, though we are still dealing with the issue of whether it's possible that God could have been acting in justice and morality to do such a thing.
I wasn't claiming that every individual had been guilty of the crime of violence, only that their society and cultural norms were evil and steeped in corruption. Violence was an expression of that, but not every individual needed to be directly guilty of violence to be guilty. But we can also rightly assume that if there were some more innocent people caught up in the deluge, that God would grant them a place in heaven upon arrival (Rom. 5.13). God can still show mercy in the afterlife as is warranted, and that would be just. Their miserable life in the middle of all the corruption and violence would be at an end, and they would enjoy eternity with God. There's nothing unfair about that.
In the rest of your discussion, you seem to want very strongly to assert that there is an objective moral standard by which right and wrong can be judged, and that standard is "human well being". But if the world appears to be purely physical, then humans are no more than an agglomeration of chemicals evolved through chance to our current state. Our chemicals have no more value than any other chemicals, because they are just components of matter without any worth except attributed worth (without basis). It's just chemicals, so there is no worth, no purpose, no comparative value. "Human well being" is merely, then, our drive to survive, and the only players in evolution are survival (flight or fight), food, and reproduction. In chemical equations, "truth" is not only immaterial, but illogical. A system based on chance (what happens happens, with no particular logic or purpose), even our thoughts are suspect (are they really true, or chance occurrences?). Our values (and morals) are merely what we have made up to aid in our survival, but they're made up. Our priority of "human well being" is a manufactured construct to perpetuate the continuity of humanity, and other than that, it's meaningless.
Not one proponent of evolutionary ethics has explained how an impersonal, amoral first cause through a non-moral process has produced a moral basis of life, while at the same time denying any objective moral basis for good and evil. It’s odd that of all the permutations and combinations that a random universe might afford we should end up with the notions of the true, the good, and the beautiful? In reality, why call anything good or evil? Why not call it orange or purple? That way, we settle it as different preferences, which is more honest.
I've given you several quotes (Sartre, Nielson, Taylor, and Mackie) that have shown that your reasoning has a logical disconnect. I'll give you another one: Joel Marks says, "The long and the short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality. I call the premise of this argument 'hard atheism.' ... A 'soft atheist' would hold that one could be an atheist and still believe in morality. And indeed, the whole crop of 'New Atheists' are softies of this kind. So was I, until I experienced my shocking epiphany that the religious fundamentalists are correct: without God, there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality." Therefore, the conclusion must be agreed upon that nothing can be intrinsically, prescriptively good, and that "human well being" is meaningless, unless there also exists a God who has fashioned the universe with purpose, vested value in human beings, and provides the basis for morality in the nature of his being.
In a purely physical world of blind physical forces, and matter is only an issue of chemistry, some people are hurt and some are going to get lucky, and even if we work for human well being, there is truly no rhyme or reason in it, nor anything that can be considered just or unjust, including's God's actions in the flood (which an atheist would deny his existence anyway). If you attribute injustice to God, you admit the existence of God, an objective principle of justice by which behaviors can be assessed, definitions of right and wrong that cross cultures and eras, and a knowledge in yourself worthy to evaluate the state of the corruption on earth at the time and enough factors that you are in a position to evaluate God's decisions and behavior at the time. You're taking a pretty big bite there.
You claim we ought to make decisions based on human well being, but that's a value system that evolution cannot create. There is no way to arrive at a morally-compelling "ought," given the assumption of a purely physical process. DNA doesn't know or care, just as computers don't care or grieve. It's just raw data. Information systems don't create ranks of value. Purely physical processes, sequenced at random, cannot produce purpose or ranks of value. It's mechanistic, chemical, and valueless. You can't out of one side of your mouth decry God's injustice (or anyone's) and out of the other side of your mouth claim that the world is purely physical.
One more quote, from William Provine, an evolutionary biologist at Cornell University: "Modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles for human society … We must conclude that when we die, we die, and that is the end of us … finally, free will as it is traditionally conceived—the freedom to make un-coerced and unpredictable choices among alternative courses of action—simply does not exist … There is no way that the evolutionary process as currently conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make moral choices."
I wasn't claiming that every individual had been guilty of the crime of violence, only that their society and cultural norms were evil and steeped in corruption. Violence was an expression of that, but not every individual needed to be directly guilty of violence to be guilty. But we can also rightly assume that if there were some more innocent people caught up in the deluge, that God would grant them a place in heaven upon arrival (Rom. 5.13). God can still show mercy in the afterlife as is warranted, and that would be just. Their miserable life in the middle of all the corruption and violence would be at an end, and they would enjoy eternity with God. There's nothing unfair about that.
In the rest of your discussion, you seem to want very strongly to assert that there is an objective moral standard by which right and wrong can be judged, and that standard is "human well being". But if the world appears to be purely physical, then humans are no more than an agglomeration of chemicals evolved through chance to our current state. Our chemicals have no more value than any other chemicals, because they are just components of matter without any worth except attributed worth (without basis). It's just chemicals, so there is no worth, no purpose, no comparative value. "Human well being" is merely, then, our drive to survive, and the only players in evolution are survival (flight or fight), food, and reproduction. In chemical equations, "truth" is not only immaterial, but illogical. A system based on chance (what happens happens, with no particular logic or purpose), even our thoughts are suspect (are they really true, or chance occurrences?). Our values (and morals) are merely what we have made up to aid in our survival, but they're made up. Our priority of "human well being" is a manufactured construct to perpetuate the continuity of humanity, and other than that, it's meaningless.
Not one proponent of evolutionary ethics has explained how an impersonal, amoral first cause through a non-moral process has produced a moral basis of life, while at the same time denying any objective moral basis for good and evil. It’s odd that of all the permutations and combinations that a random universe might afford we should end up with the notions of the true, the good, and the beautiful? In reality, why call anything good or evil? Why not call it orange or purple? That way, we settle it as different preferences, which is more honest.
I've given you several quotes (Sartre, Nielson, Taylor, and Mackie) that have shown that your reasoning has a logical disconnect. I'll give you another one: Joel Marks says, "The long and the short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality. I call the premise of this argument 'hard atheism.' ... A 'soft atheist' would hold that one could be an atheist and still believe in morality. And indeed, the whole crop of 'New Atheists' are softies of this kind. So was I, until I experienced my shocking epiphany that the religious fundamentalists are correct: without God, there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality." Therefore, the conclusion must be agreed upon that nothing can be intrinsically, prescriptively good, and that "human well being" is meaningless, unless there also exists a God who has fashioned the universe with purpose, vested value in human beings, and provides the basis for morality in the nature of his being.
In a purely physical world of blind physical forces, and matter is only an issue of chemistry, some people are hurt and some are going to get lucky, and even if we work for human well being, there is truly no rhyme or reason in it, nor anything that can be considered just or unjust, including's God's actions in the flood (which an atheist would deny his existence anyway). If you attribute injustice to God, you admit the existence of God, an objective principle of justice by which behaviors can be assessed, definitions of right and wrong that cross cultures and eras, and a knowledge in yourself worthy to evaluate the state of the corruption on earth at the time and enough factors that you are in a position to evaluate God's decisions and behavior at the time. You're taking a pretty big bite there.
You claim we ought to make decisions based on human well being, but that's a value system that evolution cannot create. There is no way to arrive at a morally-compelling "ought," given the assumption of a purely physical process. DNA doesn't know or care, just as computers don't care or grieve. It's just raw data. Information systems don't create ranks of value. Purely physical processes, sequenced at random, cannot produce purpose or ranks of value. It's mechanistic, chemical, and valueless. You can't out of one side of your mouth decry God's injustice (or anyone's) and out of the other side of your mouth claim that the world is purely physical.
One more quote, from William Provine, an evolutionary biologist at Cornell University: "Modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles for human society … We must conclude that when we die, we die, and that is the end of us … finally, free will as it is traditionally conceived—the freedom to make un-coerced and unpredictable choices among alternative courses of action—simply does not exist … There is no way that the evolutionary process as currently conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make moral choices."
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: It HAS to be global flood
by J Lord » Sun Mar 15, 2015 2:01 pm
> "I wasn't claiming that every individual had been guilty of the crime of violence, only that their society and cultural norms were evil and steeped in corruption."
Then you agree some people were unjustly killed. Some people in the society were killed despite not having committed any crime worthy of the death penalty. That was my point.
> "Our chemicals have no more value than any other chemicals"
They have more value to us. So it is logical that the terminology used by us to judge human actions is going to value human chemicals more than other chemicals. This would be the case regardless of whether the chemicals we are made of were arranged by a god or by random chance.
> " 'Human well being' is merely, then, our drive to survive,"
Yes, to survive and live a pleasant life. What more does there have to be? You have agreed that we can make all moral determinations on this basis. So I don't understand why you use the word "merely" here.
> "In reality, why call anything good or evil? Why not call it orange or purple?"
Why do we have words for anything? None are ordained my an external force. Yet none are purely subject to individual opinion. It just so happened that humans came up with a concept called morality that we both agree is directly tied to human well being. I don't see what is "missing" from this view in your opinion.
> "You claim we ought to make decisions based on human well being"
No I don't. I don't believe I have claimed this. The fact that humans have a concept called morality that is defined by human well being does not mean that anyone has to act morally. You can't objectively say how a person should act unless you know what their goals are. If a person wants to maximize well being then they should act in a manner that humans have defined as morally good. If they don't want this then they should do something else. But this doesn't change the fact that when people are talking about morality they are talking about human well being.
In regards to various quotes you have cited, some I agree with and some I don't. I have tried to make my position as clear as possible. I agree with the quote from William Provine in the sense that is no inherent reason why morality has to be defined a certain way. Just like any other human concept it is something that is the result of human society sharing a common usage for a word and concept. There is no inherent reason why frisbees exist. They were not created by any non-human force and it's same for morality. The concept exists as defined because of a series of chemical reactions that occurred in the universe.
I am still interested in your answer to this question though: what would be the difference that we would see or notice if in fact we were living in a universe where morality wasn't ordained by a god? If everything was how I envision it, what would be the noticeable difference from the world we live in now?
Then you agree some people were unjustly killed. Some people in the society were killed despite not having committed any crime worthy of the death penalty. That was my point.
> "Our chemicals have no more value than any other chemicals"
They have more value to us. So it is logical that the terminology used by us to judge human actions is going to value human chemicals more than other chemicals. This would be the case regardless of whether the chemicals we are made of were arranged by a god or by random chance.
> " 'Human well being' is merely, then, our drive to survive,"
Yes, to survive and live a pleasant life. What more does there have to be? You have agreed that we can make all moral determinations on this basis. So I don't understand why you use the word "merely" here.
> "In reality, why call anything good or evil? Why not call it orange or purple?"
Why do we have words for anything? None are ordained my an external force. Yet none are purely subject to individual opinion. It just so happened that humans came up with a concept called morality that we both agree is directly tied to human well being. I don't see what is "missing" from this view in your opinion.
> "You claim we ought to make decisions based on human well being"
No I don't. I don't believe I have claimed this. The fact that humans have a concept called morality that is defined by human well being does not mean that anyone has to act morally. You can't objectively say how a person should act unless you know what their goals are. If a person wants to maximize well being then they should act in a manner that humans have defined as morally good. If they don't want this then they should do something else. But this doesn't change the fact that when people are talking about morality they are talking about human well being.
In regards to various quotes you have cited, some I agree with and some I don't. I have tried to make my position as clear as possible. I agree with the quote from William Provine in the sense that is no inherent reason why morality has to be defined a certain way. Just like any other human concept it is something that is the result of human society sharing a common usage for a word and concept. There is no inherent reason why frisbees exist. They were not created by any non-human force and it's same for morality. The concept exists as defined because of a series of chemical reactions that occurred in the universe.
I am still interested in your answer to this question though: what would be the difference that we would see or notice if in fact we were living in a universe where morality wasn't ordained by a god? If everything was how I envision it, what would be the noticeable difference from the world we live in now?
- J Lord
Re: It HAS to be global flood
by jimwalton » Sun Mar 15, 2015 2:22 pm
> Then you agree some people were unjustly killed.
No, not necessarily. My opinion is that I am not in a position to judge. I don't have enough information to assess the situation with that kind of accuracy. What I am saying is that as members of the culture they were complicit. It's reasonable to assume they may have been polytheistic, idolatrous, and enculturated with morally negative attributes. As such, even though they may have been "good" people, they were likely not righteous people, though I'm not in a position to judge. All I'm saying is that even if some had not perpetuated violence, they could still be found guilty on other levels so that their judgment would not have been unjust.
> They have more value to us.
Yeah, that's my point. Its all relative and in that sense nonsensical. It's like us valuing diamonds over quartz. Diamonds have no more intrinsic value than quartz; they're both just rocks. Ooh, but one is so pretty we value it more, and pay big money for it. Hello, it's a rock. Because we value it more doesn't change its nature.
> What more does there have to be?
More than to survive? Purpose. Meaning in life. Teleology drives human impulse. "Why did that happen?" "Why is that there?" "What is this for?"
> It just so happened that humans came up with a concept called morality
I don't agree with this. I think God "came up with" morality. That's technically a misstatement, because he didn't have to come up with it. It emanates from his character, and is based on his nature.
> You can't objectively say how a person should act unless you know what their goals are.
We differ here. I say I can, because how a person should act is in conformity with the person of God. It doesn't pertain to their goals, but what is intrinsically right.
> what would be the difference that we would see or notice if in fact we were living in a universe where morality wasn't ordained by a god? If everything was how I envision it, what would be the noticeable difference from the world we live in now?
The world we live in now wouldn't exist as it does. In a world of matter, evolved by chance, there is no possibility of reliable knowledge. There would be no mechanism to assess the truth or falsehood of anything. Scientific inquiry would not be possible, for all thoughts would be randomly generated. Therefore there would no such thing as purpose, for everything would have been randomly generated. There is no purpose when the mechanism has been "chance". When my iTunes is on "Shuffle," it's nonsense to ask why the player chose the song on there now. There is no purpose when it's 100% random selection. It might choose the same song several times in a row. I can't expect it to give me a logical playlist. There is no rhyme or reason to its selection. So it would be in all of life. And therefore we as humans would just be an agglomeration of chemicals and biological processes, with no capability of reason, no possible purpose, and therefore no "true" or "false", "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad". Shuffle is the only player in the system, and value statements have no place in mechanistic naturalism. It is claimed by some that "well, consciousness arose." But how is that possible in a system where the development of rational consciousness depends on the ability to assess true, diagnose purpose, and value the good? All of those are impossible in a system that is entirely matter, chemicals, random chance, and impersonal mechanistic sequence. There is no logic to retrogress the possibility of reason, purpose, and value into pure evolutionary naturalism.
No, not necessarily. My opinion is that I am not in a position to judge. I don't have enough information to assess the situation with that kind of accuracy. What I am saying is that as members of the culture they were complicit. It's reasonable to assume they may have been polytheistic, idolatrous, and enculturated with morally negative attributes. As such, even though they may have been "good" people, they were likely not righteous people, though I'm not in a position to judge. All I'm saying is that even if some had not perpetuated violence, they could still be found guilty on other levels so that their judgment would not have been unjust.
> They have more value to us.
Yeah, that's my point. Its all relative and in that sense nonsensical. It's like us valuing diamonds over quartz. Diamonds have no more intrinsic value than quartz; they're both just rocks. Ooh, but one is so pretty we value it more, and pay big money for it. Hello, it's a rock. Because we value it more doesn't change its nature.
> What more does there have to be?
More than to survive? Purpose. Meaning in life. Teleology drives human impulse. "Why did that happen?" "Why is that there?" "What is this for?"
> It just so happened that humans came up with a concept called morality
I don't agree with this. I think God "came up with" morality. That's technically a misstatement, because he didn't have to come up with it. It emanates from his character, and is based on his nature.
> You can't objectively say how a person should act unless you know what their goals are.
We differ here. I say I can, because how a person should act is in conformity with the person of God. It doesn't pertain to their goals, but what is intrinsically right.
> what would be the difference that we would see or notice if in fact we were living in a universe where morality wasn't ordained by a god? If everything was how I envision it, what would be the noticeable difference from the world we live in now?
The world we live in now wouldn't exist as it does. In a world of matter, evolved by chance, there is no possibility of reliable knowledge. There would be no mechanism to assess the truth or falsehood of anything. Scientific inquiry would not be possible, for all thoughts would be randomly generated. Therefore there would no such thing as purpose, for everything would have been randomly generated. There is no purpose when the mechanism has been "chance". When my iTunes is on "Shuffle," it's nonsense to ask why the player chose the song on there now. There is no purpose when it's 100% random selection. It might choose the same song several times in a row. I can't expect it to give me a logical playlist. There is no rhyme or reason to its selection. So it would be in all of life. And therefore we as humans would just be an agglomeration of chemicals and biological processes, with no capability of reason, no possible purpose, and therefore no "true" or "false", "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad". Shuffle is the only player in the system, and value statements have no place in mechanistic naturalism. It is claimed by some that "well, consciousness arose." But how is that possible in a system where the development of rational consciousness depends on the ability to assess true, diagnose purpose, and value the good? All of those are impossible in a system that is entirely matter, chemicals, random chance, and impersonal mechanistic sequence. There is no logic to retrogress the possibility of reason, purpose, and value into pure evolutionary naturalism.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: It HAS to be global flood
by J Lord » Wed Mar 18, 2015 1:23 pm
> "It's reasonable to assume they may have been polytheistic, idolatrous, and enculturated with morally negative attributes."
Do you think the death penalty is a fair punishment for such things?
> "It's like us valuing diamonds over quartz."
It's an objective fact that diamonds are currently more valuable that quartz to humans. This is equally true if market prices are determined by supply and demand or by market faeries that magically determine prices that are always set for the entire universe.
> More than to survive? Purpose. Meaning in life. Teleology drives human impulse. "Why did that happen?" "Why is that there?" "What is this for?"
But there doesn't appear to be any reason to think there is a purpose beyond what we give to ourselves. The fact that we wish there were a greater purpose doesn't imply that there is one.
> I think God "came up with" morality.
Why do you think so? Especially since you agree it is perfectly correlated to human well being.
> I say I can, because how a person should act is in conformity with the person of God.
Only if their goal is to do what God considers to be good. If their goal is to anger God and oppose his will, then objectively speaking they should do the opposite of God's nature.
> In a world of matter, evolved by chance, there is no possibility of reliable knowledge.
How do you know this isn't currently the case? Nobody can reasonably claim to have absolute certain knowledge of anything.
> Scientific inquiry would not be possible, for all thoughts would be randomly generated.
Thoughts are not randomly generated. They appear to be possible as a result of the physical brain that evolved in humans, but that doesn't make them random. They are the result of your genetics and upbringing.
> Therefore there would no such thing as purpose, for everything would have been randomly generated.
What about the purpose humans give to their own lives? There is still a concept of purpose whether a god decides to impose purpose on our lives or whether we determine it based on our genetics and upbringing.
> And therefore we as humans would just be an agglomeration of chemicals and biological processes, with no capability of reason, no possible purpose
But we know that an agglomeration of chemicals can have the capacity to reason. A computer has the capacity to reason and it is a purely physical machine. The human brain appears to be purely physical as well and it has capacity to reason.
> It is claimed by some that "well, consciousness arose." But how is that possible in a system where the development of rational consciousness depends on the ability to assess true, diagnose purpose, and value the good?
The development of consciousness does not depend on any of these things. It appears to be an emergent property of the complex computing mechanism we have. Maybe it isn't. Nobody knows for sure how consciousness works. But there is no reason to think it can't develop without being able to value the good. And no reason to think it is impossible in a system that is entirely matter, in part because our universe appears to be entirely matter and these things have developed.
Do you think the death penalty is a fair punishment for such things?
> "It's like us valuing diamonds over quartz."
It's an objective fact that diamonds are currently more valuable that quartz to humans. This is equally true if market prices are determined by supply and demand or by market faeries that magically determine prices that are always set for the entire universe.
> More than to survive? Purpose. Meaning in life. Teleology drives human impulse. "Why did that happen?" "Why is that there?" "What is this for?"
But there doesn't appear to be any reason to think there is a purpose beyond what we give to ourselves. The fact that we wish there were a greater purpose doesn't imply that there is one.
> I think God "came up with" morality.
Why do you think so? Especially since you agree it is perfectly correlated to human well being.
> I say I can, because how a person should act is in conformity with the person of God.
Only if their goal is to do what God considers to be good. If their goal is to anger God and oppose his will, then objectively speaking they should do the opposite of God's nature.
> In a world of matter, evolved by chance, there is no possibility of reliable knowledge.
How do you know this isn't currently the case? Nobody can reasonably claim to have absolute certain knowledge of anything.
> Scientific inquiry would not be possible, for all thoughts would be randomly generated.
Thoughts are not randomly generated. They appear to be possible as a result of the physical brain that evolved in humans, but that doesn't make them random. They are the result of your genetics and upbringing.
> Therefore there would no such thing as purpose, for everything would have been randomly generated.
What about the purpose humans give to their own lives? There is still a concept of purpose whether a god decides to impose purpose on our lives or whether we determine it based on our genetics and upbringing.
> And therefore we as humans would just be an agglomeration of chemicals and biological processes, with no capability of reason, no possible purpose
But we know that an agglomeration of chemicals can have the capacity to reason. A computer has the capacity to reason and it is a purely physical machine. The human brain appears to be purely physical as well and it has capacity to reason.
> It is claimed by some that "well, consciousness arose." But how is that possible in a system where the development of rational consciousness depends on the ability to assess true, diagnose purpose, and value the good?
The development of consciousness does not depend on any of these things. It appears to be an emergent property of the complex computing mechanism we have. Maybe it isn't. Nobody knows for sure how consciousness works. But there is no reason to think it can't develop without being able to value the good. And no reason to think it is impossible in a system that is entirely matter, in part because our universe appears to be entirely matter and these things have developed.
- J Lord
Re: It HAS to be global flood
by jimwalton » Wed Mar 18, 2015 1:34 pm
> Do you think the death penalty is a fair punishment for such things?
I do. They are elements of culture that are ultimately destructive to humanity, taking us to ruination rather than well being.
> It's an objective fact that diamonds are currently more valuable that quartz to humans.
This is an odd contradiction you've posed—that's it's objectively subjective. It's a rock. It only has value in our eyes because we impose value on it. Objectively, it's a rock. Subjectively, we value it more for its beauty and hardness. Supply and demand are not objective measures, but subjective trends.
> But there doesn't appear to be any reason to think there is a purpose beyond what we give to ourselves. The fact that we wish there were a greater purpose doesn't imply that there is one.
That's where we widely disagree. I agree that our wishes don't make it so, and yet the universal yearning for purpose and meaning does speak to the logic that there is such a thing than that there is not. When we all feel an urge to survive, we say it is part of the human condition. When we all feel an urge that there is a purpose higher than ourselves, I also say it is part of the human condition. And if it is true, just if it is true, that there is a God and that he created us with purpose, that answers the question as to why we all feel that tug better than the naturalists approach that out of purposeless source we all developed a sense of purpose. That's my point.
> But we know that an agglomeration of chemicals can have the capacity to reason.
Well, my friend, you need to prove this one. That's not true at all. "A computer has the capacity to reason." Indeed it does, because it was designed by a designer with a purpose, and endowed with a capacity to reason. You're digging a debate hole for yourself on this one.
I do. They are elements of culture that are ultimately destructive to humanity, taking us to ruination rather than well being.
> It's an objective fact that diamonds are currently more valuable that quartz to humans.
This is an odd contradiction you've posed—that's it's objectively subjective. It's a rock. It only has value in our eyes because we impose value on it. Objectively, it's a rock. Subjectively, we value it more for its beauty and hardness. Supply and demand are not objective measures, but subjective trends.
> But there doesn't appear to be any reason to think there is a purpose beyond what we give to ourselves. The fact that we wish there were a greater purpose doesn't imply that there is one.
That's where we widely disagree. I agree that our wishes don't make it so, and yet the universal yearning for purpose and meaning does speak to the logic that there is such a thing than that there is not. When we all feel an urge to survive, we say it is part of the human condition. When we all feel an urge that there is a purpose higher than ourselves, I also say it is part of the human condition. And if it is true, just if it is true, that there is a God and that he created us with purpose, that answers the question as to why we all feel that tug better than the naturalists approach that out of purposeless source we all developed a sense of purpose. That's my point.
> But we know that an agglomeration of chemicals can have the capacity to reason.
Well, my friend, you need to prove this one. That's not true at all. "A computer has the capacity to reason." Indeed it does, because it was designed by a designer with a purpose, and endowed with a capacity to reason. You're digging a debate hole for yourself on this one.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: It HAS to be global flood
by J Lord » Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:25 pm
> They are elements of culture that are ultimately destructive to humanity
I don't think there is any reason to think idolatry or polytheism are ruinous to humanity. Societies with these practices have exited for thousands of years. They may not be beneficial to humanity but that wouldn't warrant the death penalty for anyone who does these things. Smoking is not beneficial for society but it would not be fair to kill everyone who smokes.
> Supply and demand are not objective measures, but subjective trends.
Something is objective if it is not influenced by a person individual opinion or individual bias. The fact that diamonds are currently more valuable than quartz is fact that is not influenced by individual opinion, perspective, or bias. Therefore it is an objective fact that diamonds are currently worth more than quartz.
Whether you think a diamond is more beautiful is subjective. Whether you personally value it more than quartz is subjective. But it is an objective that that the current prices for diamonds are higher than those of quartz.
> When we all feel an urge that there is a purpose higher than ourselves, I also say it is part of the human condition.
We don't all feel this, but I never implied that I didn't think such an urge was not part of the human condition. I said that the fact people have a strong desire for their to be a higher purpose doesn't give us any logical reason to think there is a higher purpose.
As you say, most people have a strong desire to survive. Yet people die all the time. The fact we wish we could survive forever does not logically mean we can.
As for how these desires are best explained, it is certainly possible that our brains have evolved to value survival and purpose. It is also possible that God created our brains to value survival and purpose. There could also be numerous other possibilities. It is illogical to conclude, as you have done, that God must be the reason simply because you think it is a better answer than one other proposed reason. The correct position to take in this case would be that you don't know why humans value survival and purpose.
> That's not true at all. "A computer has the capacity to reason." Indeed it does
You agree a computer is an collection of purely physical components. You agree that a computer can reason. But when I say that a collection of chemicals has the capacity to reason you say that isn't true at all. You have directly contradicted yourself in the span of one paragraph. I'm not talking about how the computer was created, I'm asking whether you think it is established that a purely physical thing (such as a computer) has the capacity to reason or not?
I don't think there is any reason to think idolatry or polytheism are ruinous to humanity. Societies with these practices have exited for thousands of years. They may not be beneficial to humanity but that wouldn't warrant the death penalty for anyone who does these things. Smoking is not beneficial for society but it would not be fair to kill everyone who smokes.
> Supply and demand are not objective measures, but subjective trends.
Something is objective if it is not influenced by a person individual opinion or individual bias. The fact that diamonds are currently more valuable than quartz is fact that is not influenced by individual opinion, perspective, or bias. Therefore it is an objective fact that diamonds are currently worth more than quartz.
Whether you think a diamond is more beautiful is subjective. Whether you personally value it more than quartz is subjective. But it is an objective that that the current prices for diamonds are higher than those of quartz.
> When we all feel an urge that there is a purpose higher than ourselves, I also say it is part of the human condition.
We don't all feel this, but I never implied that I didn't think such an urge was not part of the human condition. I said that the fact people have a strong desire for their to be a higher purpose doesn't give us any logical reason to think there is a higher purpose.
As you say, most people have a strong desire to survive. Yet people die all the time. The fact we wish we could survive forever does not logically mean we can.
As for how these desires are best explained, it is certainly possible that our brains have evolved to value survival and purpose. It is also possible that God created our brains to value survival and purpose. There could also be numerous other possibilities. It is illogical to conclude, as you have done, that God must be the reason simply because you think it is a better answer than one other proposed reason. The correct position to take in this case would be that you don't know why humans value survival and purpose.
> That's not true at all. "A computer has the capacity to reason." Indeed it does
You agree a computer is an collection of purely physical components. You agree that a computer can reason. But when I say that a collection of chemicals has the capacity to reason you say that isn't true at all. You have directly contradicted yourself in the span of one paragraph. I'm not talking about how the computer was created, I'm asking whether you think it is established that a purely physical thing (such as a computer) has the capacity to reason or not?
- J Lord
Re: It HAS to be global flood
by jimwalton » Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:29 pm
> I don't think there is any reason to think idolatry or polytheism are ruinous to humanity.
Well, what I was claiming is that according to the Bible idolatry and polytheism lead people to an eternity without God, which is as ruinous as it gets. Sure people can survive the brevity of life that way. Stalin and Mao Tze Tung survived all of life as murderers. Life isn't necessarily the measure of "ruinous".
> As for how these desires are best explained, it is certainly possible that our brains have evolved to value survival and purpose.
What I'm saying (and we are starting to repeat ourselves) is that in a system governed only by evolution elements (the four "F"s: fight, flight, food, and reproduction), purpose cannot possibly be a player, and neither is rational thought (what is true and what is not) possible. They aren't in the system. "Shuffle" is the only mechanism at work.
> You agree that a computer can reason.
I didn't contradict myself; you misunderstood a little bit. A computer can only do what it has been programmed to do. It can't truly reason, unless there are programs in it that simulate reasons. Talk with ANY computer programmer and they will verify what I am saying. A computer is determined; machines don't have free will and they cannot reason.
Well, what I was claiming is that according to the Bible idolatry and polytheism lead people to an eternity without God, which is as ruinous as it gets. Sure people can survive the brevity of life that way. Stalin and Mao Tze Tung survived all of life as murderers. Life isn't necessarily the measure of "ruinous".
> As for how these desires are best explained, it is certainly possible that our brains have evolved to value survival and purpose.
What I'm saying (and we are starting to repeat ourselves) is that in a system governed only by evolution elements (the four "F"s: fight, flight, food, and reproduction), purpose cannot possibly be a player, and neither is rational thought (what is true and what is not) possible. They aren't in the system. "Shuffle" is the only mechanism at work.
> You agree that a computer can reason.
I didn't contradict myself; you misunderstood a little bit. A computer can only do what it has been programmed to do. It can't truly reason, unless there are programs in it that simulate reasons. Talk with ANY computer programmer and they will verify what I am saying. A computer is determined; machines don't have free will and they cannot reason.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: It HAS to be global flood
by J Lord » Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:01 pm
> Well, what I was claiming is that according to the Bible idolatry and polytheism lead people to an eternity without God, which is as ruinous as it gets.
So you're saying that because God imposes an even worse penalty for these imagined crimes after death, that it is just to impose the death penalty against them? That makes no sense. Idolatry and polytheism do not warrant punishment now or after death. And imposing a worse penalty after death certainly cannot justify imposing the death penalty.
> and neither is rational thought (what is true and what is not) possible. They aren't in the system. "Shuffle" is the only mechanism at work.
A computer can be given inputs and produce a rational result. And a computer is a purely physical object running a program. So why do think determining what is true and what is not true is not possible for a purely physical machine running program?
> a system governed only by evolution elements (the four "F"s: fight, flight, food, and reproduction)
Being able to determine what is true and what is not is a very useful ability when it comes to fight, flight, food, and reproduction. So why would you not expect evolved animals to have this ability to varying degrees?
> I didn't contradict myself
You said: "A computer has the capacity to reason." Indeed it does
> and now: machines don't have free will and they cannot reason.
I never claimed that computers have free will so your objection now makes no sense to me. What I mean is that computers have the ability to output rational answers according to their programming. And they do so without the need for anything beyond purely physical forces.
So you're saying that because God imposes an even worse penalty for these imagined crimes after death, that it is just to impose the death penalty against them? That makes no sense. Idolatry and polytheism do not warrant punishment now or after death. And imposing a worse penalty after death certainly cannot justify imposing the death penalty.
> and neither is rational thought (what is true and what is not) possible. They aren't in the system. "Shuffle" is the only mechanism at work.
A computer can be given inputs and produce a rational result. And a computer is a purely physical object running a program. So why do think determining what is true and what is not true is not possible for a purely physical machine running program?
> a system governed only by evolution elements (the four "F"s: fight, flight, food, and reproduction)
Being able to determine what is true and what is not is a very useful ability when it comes to fight, flight, food, and reproduction. So why would you not expect evolved animals to have this ability to varying degrees?
> I didn't contradict myself
You said: "A computer has the capacity to reason." Indeed it does
> and now: machines don't have free will and they cannot reason.
I never claimed that computers have free will so your objection now makes no sense to me. What I mean is that computers have the ability to output rational answers according to their programming. And they do so without the need for anything beyond purely physical forces.
- J Lord
Re: It HAS to be global flood
by jimwalton » Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:22 pm
> So you're saying that because God imposes an even worse penalty for these imagined crimes after death, that it is just to impose the death penalty against them?
Now we're into deeper conversation about the nature of morality and justification for justice. What makes something right or wrong? You have claimed, if I am remembering right, that something is right if it contributes to human well being, though we know fundamentally that what often benefits one (or a group) doesn't necessarily benefit another (or another group). Morals get murky if human well being is the standard, as we've discussed (though I know you disagree; we've covered this ground). But what, if anything, makes actions like incest or bestiality, necrophilia, euthanasia or crypthanasia wrong? I have contended that idolatry and polytheism lead people into a lie that is ultimately destructive to both the person and the soul. Idolatry and polytheism are only OK if there is no truth to the existence of a real God. In that case, they are mere oddities of cultural expression. But if there really is a God, and idolatry and false religions lead people to eternal death, then they should be stopped at any cost before more people are deceived and corrupted. Those who teach and lead should be held to a higher standard of responsibility.
> A computer can be given inputs and produce a rational result.
A computer can only give rational results if it is designed and given information data to produce rational results. A computer can only "reason" deterministically. What you claim is that human can reason freely, but at the same time you say there is no "input" that was reasoned. Let me know if I have your syllogisms right:
1. A designer/programmer inputs data and capabilities into a computer.
2. A computer is able to "reason" only based on the input to produce a rational result.
3. Therefore, computers do not have free will and cannot freely reason.
Secondly,
1. Human beings had no designer, programmer, reasoned, rational, or purposeful input.
2. Evolutionary naturalism is based on chance and mechanical cause and effect.
3. Consequently, however, humans were able to consciously develop free will and the ability to reason to truth statements.
Computers can reason only according to the programming. Information in, combined with programming sequences, yields information out. Yet you are claiming that humans, starting from no information and no programming, only impersonal mechanistic sequences, has somehow yielded personality, reasoning, and purpose. Abductively speaking, inferring to the most reasonable conclusion leads me to theism, not logical positivism, scientific naturalism, or atheism.
Now we're into deeper conversation about the nature of morality and justification for justice. What makes something right or wrong? You have claimed, if I am remembering right, that something is right if it contributes to human well being, though we know fundamentally that what often benefits one (or a group) doesn't necessarily benefit another (or another group). Morals get murky if human well being is the standard, as we've discussed (though I know you disagree; we've covered this ground). But what, if anything, makes actions like incest or bestiality, necrophilia, euthanasia or crypthanasia wrong? I have contended that idolatry and polytheism lead people into a lie that is ultimately destructive to both the person and the soul. Idolatry and polytheism are only OK if there is no truth to the existence of a real God. In that case, they are mere oddities of cultural expression. But if there really is a God, and idolatry and false religions lead people to eternal death, then they should be stopped at any cost before more people are deceived and corrupted. Those who teach and lead should be held to a higher standard of responsibility.
> A computer can be given inputs and produce a rational result.
A computer can only give rational results if it is designed and given information data to produce rational results. A computer can only "reason" deterministically. What you claim is that human can reason freely, but at the same time you say there is no "input" that was reasoned. Let me know if I have your syllogisms right:
1. A designer/programmer inputs data and capabilities into a computer.
2. A computer is able to "reason" only based on the input to produce a rational result.
3. Therefore, computers do not have free will and cannot freely reason.
Secondly,
1. Human beings had no designer, programmer, reasoned, rational, or purposeful input.
2. Evolutionary naturalism is based on chance and mechanical cause and effect.
3. Consequently, however, humans were able to consciously develop free will and the ability to reason to truth statements.
Computers can reason only according to the programming. Information in, combined with programming sequences, yields information out. Yet you are claiming that humans, starting from no information and no programming, only impersonal mechanistic sequences, has somehow yielded personality, reasoning, and purpose. Abductively speaking, inferring to the most reasonable conclusion leads me to theism, not logical positivism, scientific naturalism, or atheism.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
24 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Return to Noah's Ark & the Flood
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest