451. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90178 by steve99 on November 23, 2007 at 9:09 am

Look at what I wrote above. "X is good" This is about X and this is about me only if X=me, but this isn't likely because what we are talking about is call certain acts good or bad, not persons.

Not really. It is a matter of how you judge an act.

It's clear that it isn't.

I don't think it is clear at all.

Maybe there are similarities, but good isn't any more an impression than 'blue' is. Both blue and good is a quality that things can have. Love and other emotions are conditions and not qualities.

blue IS an impression.

Well, do you believe in matter? Can you demonstrate it?

I can feel it myself, then go ask others if they also feel it. I can say 'can you feel this wall here'? There is not going to be much disagreement.

But when we deal with morality, there can be vast disagreements, both between different cultures and through time. This disagreement is, to me, a strong indication that there is nothing particularly objective there.

He IS the Universal Goodness meter. Of course only if He exists. That's what I'm saying from the beginning. :)

That just doesn't work. Satanists could give the ultimate being a different name and claim he is the Universal Badness meter.

Of course, and these discussions with others and self-examinations can change what we feel right. But in the end, we will do what we feel right.

Yes, absolutely. And we don't need all the God and Transcendance baggage to do that, do we?

452. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90170 by steve99 on November 23, 2007 at 8:48 am

Ok, but if there is no objective morality than what do you suggest?

Follow your conscience, the Golden Rule and talk with others about what they think.

As I keep trying to point out - that is what you are doing anyway! You don't need the 'objective morality' crutch. Just keep being a nice person.

453. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90168 by steve99 on November 23, 2007 at 8:45 am

It is still true that moral judgements are about the world and not about our feelings.

Is it? Why?

What do you mean what you say that morality is just thinking and feeling? Of course our every sensation is just a feeling. A statement like "this wall is white" IS about feelings, namely our sensation of the white wall. But that doesn't mean that there is no wall or it isn't white.

You can hit a wall with your hand and feel it is there. Can you do the same with morality?

I believe that it is that way. I also believe that it is good that it is this way.

Doesn't help unless you can show rather than just believe.

My God is by definition good. If He isn't good than he is something else, not what I call God.

So, in order to call Him good, you need to show he is. As I have asked others here... where is the Universal Goodness meter you can point at God to show this?

Yes, but when I do it, I do it because I think that what I feel right is really right.

People have kept slaves, oppressed women, persecuted gays because they felt it was really right.

So what? You suggest that we shouldn't do what we feel right? Than what should we do? What we feel wrong? Or what?

We combine what we feel is right with discussion with others. We regularly review what we feel. We beware of simply collecting together a few people who agree with us, reinforcing our views. We keep asking 'what if I am wrong'?

454. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90152 by steve99 on November 23, 2007 at 7:45 am

Love, hate, pleause and pain are impressions. When we say that we feel one of these than we don't make a statement about the world but about ourselves. But morality is not something like this. When I say that "X is good" than I make a statement about X, namely I endow it with the nature of goodness what it either really has or doesn't have.

Sorry, but morality IS something like this. It really is just thinking and feeling. I'll go into this below.

I had to face the problem that the only possible source of morality is the transcendence. I had to choose between rejecting morality or rejecting atheism. I have chosen the second option, not because of wishful-thinking, but becausew I really believe that there is such a thing as moral good and bad.

This is wishful thinking. Just because you want something to be a certain way, it does not mean it is.

First of all, the existence of a transcendent realm does not provide a 'morality service'. As I have said, you can't tell if God is good, so how does it help at all?

Also, you seem to think you need the crutch of some absolute morality to get through life. Well, you don't. If you look closely, you will realise you actually have never had that crutch. My view is that the idea of absolute morality is like a map that someone would consider helpful when they are lost...if only they could find the map! The thing is, that even if such a map of morality exists, there is no evidence that anyone has found it, or even how they could begin to search for it. We all base what we do on what we think and feel is right, from introspection and from discussion with others, and that is the best we can do.

455. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90100 by steve99 on November 23, 2007 at 12:47 am

The 'measurement' is in not being able to explain infinity. Therefore all of our 'measuring tools' are finite, thus proving we are operating with finite laws and physics, inside of a greater infinite.

No, that doesn't prove anything. This is just words strung together.

Because all of finite is created.

Why?

Only the infinite has no beginning or end, thus no creation.

Why?

I don't. All I know is that the inifinite exists.

How?

We know that infinity exists because if infinity did not exist, then the finite could not exist.

Why?

In other words, something cannot be made out of nothing.

Heard of the uncertainty principle?

This would then mean it is impossible for there to be a beginning.

No. Have you heard of the closed Universe ideas of Hawking? Do you claim to know more about the nature of time and the structure of the Universe than Hawking?

Whether it was created by random chance natural selection evolution

Natural Selection is not random chance.

456. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90056 by steve99 on November 22, 2007 at 2:25 pm

For me this is crucial. In fact, things go horribly wrong when morality is domgatized (Sorry for the neologism.) Our behaviour "improves" as we better discern hurt to others. This is how most moral progress is made.

I could not agree more. This is the profound danger of religion (and other dogmas) - that they try and supress our personal sense of when we hurt others, and try and convince us that this hurt is for our own good.

So often I have seen people bypass their religious teaching because of their personal sense of what is right. I have seen acceptance of homosexuality in catholic cultures that wants to label such activity evil. I have seen people realise that contraception and abortion are necessary, against the teaching of popes. I have seen communities accept people of differing beliefs, even though those beliefs are labelled as heresies. This is why I am convinced that religion is a parasitic meme - it so often works against stable, happy, accepting and tolerant communities. I am happy to say that in the United Kingdom today we seem to be making good moral progress (such in terms of equality laws), against the demands of religion.

457. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90053 by steve99 on November 22, 2007 at 2:03 pm

"Why should there be an absolute standard?"

Ok, no God no morality. Than what are we talking about? :)

No. There are many things we experience that we know exist that don't need any absolute scale to make them meaningful. Love; hate; pleasure; pain. One can trivialise this to emphasise the point: cheesiness; kitchness; tunefulness and so on.

Does there need to be some universal absolute standard of Kitch so one can consider the work of Pierre et Gilles somewhat towards the upper end of the scale?

The problem as I see it is that people are trying to justify feelings. I believe that our sense of morality is fundamentally emotional. We refine and negotiate our emotional responses in order to co-exist with others in society, but there is nothing fundamental or absolute about them.

458. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90043 by steve99 on November 22, 2007 at 1:35 pm

And do you think they are right? :)

well, no, that is why I used the word 'immoral'.

But he also evolved self-centeredness. Why should he listen to emphaty when that doesn't benefit him while he can listen to the selfish parts of his soul (or brain or whatever)?

Because our brains (if we aren't psycopaths) aren't wired to give us sufficient pleasure from self-centredness as when we are 'good'. As Hitchens puts it so well, when he gives blood, it makes him feel good.

Well, where does that absolute standard comes from if not from transcendence? If you read what I wrote previously (comment 87 here), than you can see what's my problem.

Why should there be an absolute standard?

J:

...or they can remind us of it, when we are tempted to override it with greed, vengefulness, schadenfreude, bigotry or laziness.

We need to remember that religion is a Selfish Meme. It will remind us of those when it is beneficial to the religion. It will bypass our innate sense of what we should do when it needs to propogate itself.

459. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90031 by steve99 on November 22, 2007 at 12:48 pm

I read about this in The Times earlier today. Its a fantastic new discovery, and its also another piece of evidence to add to the already substantially large pile that indicates morality is indeed an evolutionary trait, or at least partially.

Just not possible. They must have overheard Bible readings while in the womb.

460. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90024 by steve99 on November 22, 2007 at 12:27 pm

2, The main point of this discussion is not (or at least that's how I see it) whether God gave us good instructions but whether we can define morality without some 'religious' ideas.

An interesting point. That is not how I would deal with this question. My approach is to question what morality really means, and its foundations. I think that claiming 'we need god to be moral' is assuming that we understand the terms involved (like 'moral'), and I don't believe we do.

I hope I don't give the impression of supporting immorality (well, not in general. Depends on the circumstances). I just think we need to figure out for ourselves what we consider moral and immoral, and not rely on some people's delusions about what a God wants.

4, If Aquinas is right than what God says to be good is not 'his sense of good' in the same way as we have a sense of good but rather God impersonates goodness itself.

There is a deep problem here.

We have a general idea of what we want 'good' to mean. And yet, God is usually thought of as largely unknowable. So it is hard to see what logical justification there could be to believe that God instantiates goodness.

Look at it this way. Imagine that there are a range of positions on the 'moral scale', from 100% good to 100% bad. How do we know what mix of goodness and badness God instantiates?

The evidence of scripture is that God does not instantiate pure goodness. In the bible, there are passages that claims that God experiences jealousy.

And, if one looks at the evidence of Nature, I would suggest the most appropriate conclusion is that if there is a God, he is neutral. He favours neither the hunter or the hunted. His creatures experience life, but are tortured by parasites.

The idea that God instantiates goodness seems to me to be wishful thinking borne of desperation and fear. This life is so full of care, that there must be something better, and, if there is an all-powerful designer, he had better be good, because if not, we are in deep trouble.

461. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90013 by steve99 on November 22, 2007 at 11:50 am

Of course, everyone can be inconsistent. Your question is a good one. Why does Mr. Dawkins do good? I don't think he has any reason to do so.

Of course he does. His evolved conscience and empathy, and his reasoning based on that.

Maybe he doesn't know, but whenever he does something unselfish he is rejecting his atheism.

That does not follow at all. Even if you believe that there are absolute standards of ethics, this need not involve a God, or belief in a God.

The fact that people who do not believe in transcendence do good things doesn't mean that it is consistent not to believe in God and be moral at the same time.

Who cares about consistency? There are plenty of people who believe in God and do immoral things.

462. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90009 by steve99 on November 22, 2007 at 11:40 am

We are a finite living inside of an infinite

How do you know - have you measured what we are living inside?

We operate with created laws and physics

How do you know they are created?

inside of non-created infinite laws and physics that we are not capable of knowing while operating in the finite.

If we aren't capable of knowing them, how do you know anything about them?

But nevertheless we know they are there

How?

unless one wants to claim that infinity does not exist, but which is impossible.

Is it? How do you know? Have you heard about closed models of the universe, which would mean that our spacetime is finite?

I really don't think you understand the words you are using here. I think you are using them because they just sound neat.

463. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89947 by steve99 on November 22, 2007 at 8:13 am

Not if he changed his mind from doing one thing perfectly to doing something else perfectly.

And there we have it. The great theological and philosophical debates that have raged over the centuries are finally put to rest by one comment on this forum.

Or maybe not...

464. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89918 by steve99 on November 22, 2007 at 6:08 am

"Darwinism is big business these days"

Indeed it is.

Well said. Lots of nice money can be made from ideas that actually work. Heck, people even make money from relativity, as it is involved in GPS. I would love to see the drug and agricultural companies attempt to make money using Creationism.

but MACRO, that's totally different.

My impression is that not that many scientists realise that we have actually seen macroevolution happen - yes, the formation of a new species (separate breeding group), that has out-competed other variations. we have seen this happen through polyploidy - the multiplication of the entire genome. This happens very frequently in plants, and is about as 'macro' as you can get, as the resulting plants (if they are viable) can be quite different in size and growth characteristics. One example I like is with the Spartina salt marsh grasses, as this was seen in nature, not in any lab or garden, in recent history.

Polyploidy (and other gene duplication events) are a simple to understand mechanism for adding information to the genome, as one copy of the gene(s) is free to vary without necessarily causing too much harm.

I find that mentioning this stuff usually results in a period of thoughtful silence from creationists, as a pet argument has been demolished. Of course, what usually follows is an attempt to redefine 'species' and 'mutation' and so on...

465. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89889 by steve99 on November 22, 2007 at 3:57 am

To develop which theme, and thereby add further proof to the already towereing mountain in favour of god: forget the banana, take a fundamentalist theist. You can have a whole fruitcake.

Nice one.

466. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89851 by steve99 on November 22, 2007 at 12:54 am

Except for the fact that you have not proven that there is no need for an Intelligent Designer, you have inadvertently proven or provided evidence for the opposite, that there IS a need for an Intelligent Designer, seeing how you didn't prove it can be created without one, but with one.

So let me get this straight.

If we DON'T investigate some natural phenomenon, then we don't understand it enough to dismiss an intelligent designer.

If we DO investigate some natural phenomenon enough to be able to reproduce it in a laboratory, then we have apparently provided evidence for an intelligent designer.

This is useful, as what you have done is declared Intelligent Design to be unfalsiable, and by doing so you have put it outside the realm of science.

Which is kind of the point we have been trying to make.

Let me show you yet again how poor your reasoning is. I'll tell you a story, simplifying a bit.

Some people claimed that the pyramids were made by aliens. Why did they claim this? Because it would obviously have been too difficult for people to have managed it.

But then, it was shown that people could indeed have built the pyramids. Once that was shown, the alien hypothesis was (largely) abandoned. No-one could be taken even a little bit seriously if, after having been shown how the pyramids were well within the capabilities of the Egyptians, they still insisted on alien origins.

Same with evolution. Some people insist that we can't observe evolution, and that it can't possibly work by itself. But we have shown that without doubt, both by observing evolution in the wild, and by experimenting with it in the laboratory. But these are in no way evidence for a designer; obviously not.

If you can show that the pyramids could be built by people, it is time to stop believing in alien design.

If you can show that evolution can happen by itself, it is time to stop believing that it needs God.

467. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89778 by steve99 on November 21, 2007 at 5:17 pm

Even Bizarro wasn't this dumb.

Agreed. This reminds me of those who write (usually in oddly coloured ink) off to prominent scientists claiming that they have had a brilliant and original insight that proves Einstein wrong.

468. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89774 by steve99 on November 21, 2007 at 5:09 pm

In other words 'man-made evolution.' The oxymoron of oxymorons in the science community.

Eh?

You want us to show evolution in a lab, but if we do, you will refuse to accept it because it is 'oxymoronic'?

Bizarre.

If you had done some research, you would know that we have observed evolution in the lab which is not man made. In these cases, we did not do the evolving. We didn't fiddle with the DNA. The creatures did it all by themselves.

469. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89756 by steve99 on November 21, 2007 at 4:26 pm

I don't give a crap if you disagree with almost every scientist on the planet.

Personally, I find this conspiracy theorist attitude fascinating. It is surprisingly common.

470. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89753 by steve99 on November 21, 2007 at 4:18 pm

If you can't create or recreate evolution in the lab, then you can never prove your theory.

Do you actually read what people write here, or are you just posting at random?

We have created evolution in the lab, but in doing so, we have uncovered the simple mechanisms involved, which points away from a designer - just no need.

If you can create or recreate evolution in the lab, then you just proved that life can be created by an Intelligent Designer.

We can create lightning in the lab. Do you believe in Thor?

We can create waves in the lab. Do you believe in Poseidon?

471. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89751 by steve99 on November 21, 2007 at 4:13 pm

The judge said it didn't matter if it was or wasn't true because it doesn't use the scientific method and is therefore not science.

Indeed. The verdict was not about what is true or not, it was about what gets taught in science classes. If someone wants to teach artistic appreciation of life, that goes in an art class. If someone wants to discuss how to prepare some life for sunday lunch, that goes in cookery class. If someone wants to involve God, that goes in a religion class.

472. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89745 by steve99 on November 21, 2007 at 4:01 pm

Had he said "proven to be true," then he would have had to rule evolution non-science as well.

Hmm... what do you mean by "proof"?

473. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89740 by steve99 on November 21, 2007 at 3:57 pm

You ask for evidence, and then you dismiss it because you refuse any evidence that contradicts darwinism.

This is an interesting claim, as it is the IDers that refuse to look at evidence (hilariously so in the Dover trial).

Behe made a prediction - the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved as if it was not complete, it could not have served any useful function. It did not take long to show that (1) It did work if you took some bits away and (2) a smaller collection of some of the bits work fine, but for another purpose - secretion.

So, Behe was proved wrong. He put forward a straightforward claim, and it was shown to be false. He refuses to change his mind.

Therefore what darwinists are promoting isn't true science, it's totalitarianism; it's a cult.

Fascinating. You are really freaked by Natural Selection. Why?

474. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89731 by steve99 on November 21, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Steve (106), thanks for the correction. I sometimes forget to start a statement I'm not sure about with "I think - - - "

Sorry - I did not mean it to sound like a correction. Your point of view is widely held. I was just putting forward an idea..

475. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89724 by steve99 on November 21, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Actually, walk, I am going to argue with you if you don't mind.

the inception of life is not part of evolutionary theory

I suspect that it will become part of the theory. The origin almost certainly involved different physical structures and chemical pathways which could mutate in some way, and which could compete for the use of an energy resource. I think this could fairly be described as a combination of evolution and selection...

476. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89719 by steve99 on November 21, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Steve99 just took our fun away Walk. Let's get him!

Heh. Sorry chaps.

477. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89714 by steve99 on November 21, 2007 at 3:12 pm

Darwinism is big business these days, and they aren't about to let in any competitors, if they can help it.

They have been letting in "competitors" all the time. Ideas about how evolution works have changed considerably since Darwin's time.

The thing is, that if you want to challenge an idea as powerful as evolution by natural selection, you had better have some good evidence. All the evidence one could possibly need for natural selection has been seen:

we have seen 'microevolution' - small changes accumulating in response to selection pressure.

we have seen what some call 'macroevolution' - the formation of new species, and not just in microbes, but in large, complex organisms.

we have seen the addition of new information to genomes.

we have made falsifiable predictions about what transitional fossils should be like, and we have found fossils that support some predictions, and challenge others.

So, evolution by natural selection is both a successful predictive theory and has been seen in action.

We teach evolution by natural selection to children because of its proven success as a reliable theory for a long time. ID has had no such success.

If man can create a star himself, no matter how small, then he just proved that stars could have been made by an Intelligent Designer.

This is a weird misunderstanding. By creating stars (well, short-lived fusion) in laboratories we have shown that there is no need for an intelligent designer for their formation in Nature, as we have discovered the mechanisms that go on in them, and how they can form all by themselves.

We make artificial lightning in the laboratory, but that is no reason to believe in Thor, God of Thunder. In fact, it is a good reason not to.

Fact is not subject to democracy, monopoly or totalitarianism.

Facts result from evidence, from demonstration. If you are going to claim some intelligence had a role in evolution, you had better have some evidence of that. Attempts to provide evidence (such as Behe's irreducible flagellum) have been clearly shown to be wrong.

I can understand why some people would want to believe in ID. Without it, we are the result of a blind process, and our existence is supposedly without meaning. I believe the exact opposite is true: our existence has more meaning than if we are simply manufactured by a deity.

478. AAI 07 DVDs by RDFRS are Now Available!

Comment #89682 by steve99 on November 21, 2007 at 1:33 pm

(Okay, before anyone else gets there first "infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me" - to be spoken in a Frankie Howard voice).

Kenneth Williams, actually. (Carry on Cleo).

479. The Scientists Speak

Comment #89543 by steve99 on November 21, 2007 at 3:42 am

I have heard that CO2 the amount of which we humans are responsible for generating pales in comparison to the amount resulting from normal volcanic activity.

It is actually the other way around. Humans produce around 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year, volcanoes about 0.3 gigatonnes.

480. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89536 by steve99 on November 21, 2007 at 3:08 am

You will just make it harder to go.

Good! You simply musn't go.

481. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89535 by steve99 on November 21, 2007 at 3:06 am

In the end I think the answers that Sam Harris gave will do more to convince people to donate then the initial, rather short and mysterious article.

I agree.

482. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89497 by steve99 on November 21, 2007 at 12:54 am

Not to mention God's infinite mind would result in infinite problems of heat dissipation, which pretty much proves that God does not exist ;-)

So how does God's mind work then? You claim to know so much about it.

All minds that we know of require substance in order to think and store memories. This is independent of the issue of what consciousness is. Cosciousness without thoughts is not that useful. So, if you are going to claim that God is a conscious being, then He must have thoughts. That means that the state of his mind must be able to change. If he is going to think of complicated things (such as how to make people believe that Jesus was resurrected), then his mind must be able to represent those things. This requires complexity. It makes no difference if that complexity is based on what you call 'mechanical' physical reality, or some other substrate.

To claim that a mind need not be complex is to both ignore everything we have ever known or experienced about minds (which would require an awfully good bit of evidence to back this up), or to misuse words.

483. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89382 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 1:36 pm

In parenting you discovered your god's mind. That's fine. You made him up. Like the prophets, hucksters and charlatans before you; from Abraham (undocumented) to Moses (undocumented) to Jesus (poorly documented), to Mohammad (also poorly documented), to Joseph Smith (well documented), to Jim Jones (Very well documented), to David Koresh (Also very well documented). All knowing the image of god in their mind; and loving the little children.

You just don't understand. Dianelos has REALLY discovered God's mind. How do we know? Because Dianelos says so. How do we know? Because Dianelos says so. How do we know? Because Dianelos says so....

484. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89332 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 10:09 am

Illusions are wrong inferences we make based on our direct experience. But the experience itself cannot be wrong.

Of course it can. Look in the dictionary under "hallucination".

Incidentally, both that direct sensory experience is always true, but that anything we infer from it may be wrong, is one of the oldest insights of philosophy.

Absolutely. Which is why you are wrong to be certain about the insights you get when you look inside yourself.... you may get a "feeling" that you have discovered absolute ethics, but as you yourself say, inferring that you really have is a big mistake.

Do you understand?

485. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89331 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 10:08 am

There is a lot that is real but that is not "objectively measurable" such as one's love for one's wife, or the beauty of the laws of the physical universe.

But what we are talking about is trying to communicate that belief to others.

As for how to decide which is more reasonable, an ontology that posits an evil God from an ontology that posits a good God, we've been over this many times: compare the two ontologies one to one under the same set of criteria, including which best explains the whole of your experience of life.

I can honestly and in all sincerity say that the best ontology that explains the whole of my experience of life is that if there is a God, he or she or it just does not care at all.

You are under the impression that strict evidentialism works

All I am asking is that if you claim something that I don't believe, you don't expect me to change my belief just on your say so. You want to dress this all up in fancy words, just to confuse a poor soul like me.

Suppose I claim that I am a conscious being, and you ask me for evidence. You see? There is no evidence I can give you for something I know with absolute certainty is true.

How do you know they are true? How do you get to decide? Do you trust yourself so much? Do you have a direct path to truths that philsophers have been trying to seek out for millenia?

If you know with absolute certainty that there are absolute ethics, then either you are one of the greatest philsophers who have ever lived, or you are deluded. Which do you think it is?

It seems completely obvious to me that "to help somebody in need is better than instead torture them" is both true, and true independently of anybody's personal opinion or any social convention, i.e. is an objectively true precept. If you really doubt this, then I pity you.

Then pity me. But as I have said 10,000 times, "completely obvious" is a really dumb way to determine reality. We KNOW it just doesn't work.

Yes, I remember your suggestion, but I never understood what kind of evidence that is. Perhaps a few people suffer from some kind of mental handicap that makes them incapable of counting and realizing that 2+2=4; but this would not evidence that mathematics is not objective.

But that doesn't work, does it. There is no consensus on ethics. One person's human right is another person's religious taboo.

I am really worried that people think like you. Looking inside yourself as an individual is fine. But claiming that what you find reveals absolute truths is very dangerous, especially when you claim divine backing.

486. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89323 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 9:53 am

I have. You can too!

Dr B's product is amazing. Apply it to idealistic theism and you get all that consciousness and mental reality stuff, but fresh and clean and wiped free of the stain of God. Personally, I am not that keen on what I have left (idealism), but it looks far better without all that smelly 'God is good, and do what He says' stuff.

I am a satisfied customer.

487. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89322 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 9:49 am

Well, any solution of idealism carries over to theistic idealism too.

No, it doesn't, not in any meaningful sense. That is like saying 'we see life all around us, therefore accept my claim that dragons exist'.

Not really that big a step

It is one of the biggest steps you can imagine. From the existence of minds to the existence of God. A good that is, against all the evidence, supposed to be good. A God we can't know, but should trust anyway.

Is this some new use of the term "big step" that I am not familiar with?

But observe that there aren't any idealistic non-theists.

Aren't there? Isn't this a claim about reality :)

Anyway, it is irrelevant. Idealistic theism is idealism + theism. You can't sneak that last step in without a lot of justification.

488. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89314 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 9:31 am

That science is only about modeling phenomenal reality becomes painfully clear when you get down to the level of quantum mechanics.

Repeat after me slowly until you understand:

"Science is not just modelling"

Modelling is just one tool that science uses. Science is also about 'start simple and work up from there', but you don't like this bit.

Just because you personally don't like the implications of Quantum Mechanics does not mean that the implications are false. Whatever is out there does not have to conform to Dianelos' personal taste.

If you don't like it, come up with something better, an alternative theory, that can be distinguished from QM by experiment and that is as accurate.

"Goddidit" won't do.

489. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #89259 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 6:00 am

OK - now what?

A nice up of tea... what else?

490. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #89255 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 5:55 am

We are almost at the summit.

Just just a couple more steps.... and here we are.

491. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #89249 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 5:36 am

I'm not entirely convinced that particular tactic would move this thread forward.

Forward, backwards - what do we care? Atheist Logic means that all directions are relative.

As Plantinga said "you just Kant be right"

492. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89246 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 5:25 am

How to explain such a self-contradictory mind?
1. ignorance
2. mislead by someone in authority
3. madness
4. mendacity

I'm voting for #4 at this point, although I'm trying my best to give the benefit of the doubt.

That is too simple, Dr B. We know for sure there is oodles of (1).

I would suggest another explanatory factor:

5. fear

Some people just can't deal with the idea that we have to steer ourselves in terms of morality, that there we are alone. They feel insecure, and scared of what they think would be the consequences.

So, morality must be objective, and determined by good God; not because of any evidence, but because of the horrors that would result if we assume it isn't....

493. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #89236 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 4:42 am

I could mention Plantinga and Kant a lot.

494. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89232 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 4:19 am

After all the only reason to believe that an intelligent mind is complex is to assume that it must work on the mechanical principles that a naturalistic understanding of reality posits.

I really can't believe anyone could post anything this dumb. Intelligence is complicated because it involves storage and processing of information. This has to be the case no matter what the substrate (atoms or fairy wings or GodMind).

It is astonishing how some people manage to convince themselves that by flicking the switch from 'natural' to 'supernatural' that anything goes, and they can use terms as they wish.

It seems you don't need to be a religious fundamentalist to be able to switch off your capacity for critical thought and to full heartedly (or foolish heartedly) embrace non-explanations.

Well, indeed. You could hardly find a better example of a non-explanation than "God's mind can be simple because he is in the supernatural realm".

495. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89205 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 2:30 am

Have you guys made any headway?? I think not. Not that I would want to stop your fun, frustration or whatever:-).

Well, perhaps we have made no headway against DG directly, but I have learn a huge amount. And, like epeeist, I find that if you don't take DG too seriously, this can be fun.

496. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89202 by steve99 on November 20, 2007 at 2:21 am

According to Plantinga's original argument if naturalism and natural evolution are true then the probability of us having any cognitive capacity is low or at best inscrutable. So, according to Plantinga, our mathematical reasoning for example would not necessarily have evolved towards truth but only towards causing (when combined with our desires) the appropriate behavior.

That is a naive understanding of evolution. For example, there is no reason why 'the appropriate behaviour' should not uncover truth. For example, when humans started to use fire to keep warm (appropriate behaviour) they discovered the truth that fire can hurt. Drop a mammoth leg into the fire by accident, and you discover fire can cook... at that point Gordon Ramsay is inevitable :)

1) It represents more a wish about how things should be in order for the argument against naturalism to be invalidated, than an actual argument. After all where's the evidence that such an amalgam of previous cognitive capacities would serve for the completely different task of ontological reasoning?

It happens all the time in biology. I gave the example of parrots talking English. The amalgam of their capacities serves a completely different task.

In biology, things are messy and chaotic. There is no predicting what a collection of capacities evolved in one environment are capable of in another.

2)My point using these examples is to show that our cognitive faculties appear to be much less flexible than what would be necessary for Steve's argument to work.

You are missing an important point here. Humans are the supreme toolmakers. Once you start making tools you can extend what you do in all kinds of ways, and far beyond your initial biological capabilities. Just look at what happened when when we started making simple tools... humans could kill the largest animals, and could chop down trees. Make those tools a bit better and we end up flying to the moon. Where is the evolutionary advantage of the lunar landings?

You see, evolution is not as clever as Plantinga implies. It can't evolve "only the toolmaking suitable for hunting".

Reasoning is a tool, and once you start to use it, what you can achieve in terms of thinking is phenomenal, especially if you have other people to help, and symbols to write things down with. You can even manage 11-dimensional math with that arrangement!

But if a naturalist is always willing, no matter what, to make additional assumptions and/or change naturalism in any possible direction as long as doing so avoids supernaturalism, then that is a reaction motivated by a premise accepted on faith, isn't it? (Here I am using faith in its common meaning of "dogmatic".)

No, because it depends what kind of naturalist you are.

For me, and for many other "naturalists" the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" does not have much meaning.

For me, there seems to be stuff that happens and I want to try and understand it. If we found evidence of ghosts (for example), I would not be disturbed; I would want someone to set up a research project to study them like any other phenomena. What I dislike is when people assume the things for which there is no clear objective evidence and then imply that it is up to those who disagree to try and prove them wrong. Science doesn't work like that.

We need to build up models of the stuff out there carefully, step by step, so that we try not to fool ourselves (as we often do).

This, you see, is my objection to what people call "supernatural". I am not claiming "it can't exist", or as some would say "it is anti-science". My objection is that belief in the supernatural starts from the wrong place - assuming complexity at the start.

497. For the glory of God

Comment #89093 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 5:33 pm

My only point is that eventually the planet, and life (probably not as we know it) will continue.

Oh certainly, and I have few doubts that humans will survive too. We are the most adaptable species on the planet.

498. For the glory of God

Comment #89049 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 3:14 pm

This IPCC comment is pretty wrong. The planet will be fine in the long run (read a few million years). A lot of species will dissapear, but life won't.

Well yes, but things could get pretty nasty in the meantime. I used to think life would get on pretty much OK even if we suffered from global warming, but then I saw a documentary which suggested that the permian extinction, which wiped almost everything out, was triggered by only an initial 5C temperature rise. That led to methane release to the atmosphere which added another 5C and that did the trick. 5C is not a wild estimate for the temperature rise that could result if CO2 emissions follow current trends.

499. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #89041 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Do we know of any such people?

An interesting question. I don't think we do, but the idea is sound.

500. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #89032 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 2:46 pm

how can it not be a belief system? To say "I don't believe in gods" is simply a negative belief.

Even Dawkins has said that you cannot disprove the existence of god, you can only say that on the evidence you have, it is highly unlikely that god exists.

This is certainly a belief.

One problem with this way of thinking is that anyone who simply happens to be ignorant of the concept of God is also atheist.

The other matter is that there is a difference between "belief" and "belief system". The latter implies a degree of structure and consistency. People can be atheist for all sorts of reasons; there is no structure to it, like there are for certain religious belief systems.