Show me the proof??

[logical bob]

Yes, I think we are getting somewhere. I also think that you have a problem in each of your two points.

In the first, you’re assuming that there must be a purpose, a satisfactory answer to the why question. I reject this because I see no reason to think that the universe has any intrinsic purpose or meaning. Random events happen all the time with no reason or purpose.

In the second, I think you’re simply confused over what is and isn’t possible.

Assuming the big bang really happened, the starting point should be even before that - namely,the primordial hot and dense initial condition.

This might be a pedantic detail but time, like space, is a property of the universe that started with the big bang. There was no before the big bang.

Random chance can never answer the question 'why'.

Yes it can. It gives the answer: for no reason. Do you really question why random events happen? Do you ask why this week's lottery numbers were what they were? Or why a particle of radioactive material decays when it does? There isn't necessarily a reason why, yet you're assuming that there must be.

He might observe that random chance triggered off many things but there isn't any purpose to be found in random chance, is there?

No. That's precisely the point.

How can I meaningfully conclude that there is no meaning in our world?

You've now moved beyond science and into metaphysics. Tread carefully.

But a 'self-replicating' molecule out of 'chance' is conceptually impossible.

No it isn't. Some objects, like genes, create copies of themselves as a property of their physical structure. It's nothing mystical. It's something that those elements arranged in that pattern do. In the primordial soup of the ancient oceans, billions upon trillions of molecules would have been formed by random combinations of those elements. There's nothing conceptually impossible about the idea that one out of this multitude would have had the necessary structure (though it would have been far simpler than the genes of a living organism).

How can something created by random chance attain and exhibit an intrinsic property - namely that of self-replication?

I don’t understand what you mean by an intrinsic property here.

 

[ivdavid]

Brilliant. You've got to see this discussion through to the end. I wish the moderators would make this a sticky thread.

Bob, you've answered my first point satisfactorily. Now, we have agreed upon this -
Statement 1: No meaning,reason or purpose can be found in a random process.

In my previous post, I was actually trying to show how the above statement should be the logical conclusion - but you'd arrived at it already. I should have simply asked your stance instead of all my explaining. So, I'd just shoot a couple of questions to know what your stance is and then we can discuss the individual points of differences, if any.

1. Are we humans, a random process today? I mean, do you think there is any reason and meaning in our lives? Do you feel there is any purpose to our life? (I'm not discussing science - I'm just discussing your viewpoints. A simple yes/no would do for now.)

2. I'll do my best with yet another crude hypothetical example.
A pure random number generating machine is used for the weekly lottery. The machine gives the winning number as 17 in this first week of march. The same 17 also happens to be the winning numbers for the remaining weeks in march. After that we don't get a 17 until next year. Surprisingly, the number 17 is again generated throughout march in 2011. Then stops. And then again during march 2012. And so on.

What should be the correct conclusion -
a) The machine has a property of giving out the number 17 during the month of march.

OR

b) It's still a random process. A pattern seems to emerge and is being observed and that pattern can be termed a 'property of the machine' for human reference but nonetheless, it still is a random process only.

 

[logical bob]

Brilliant. You've got to see this discussion through to the end.

No worries.

Now, we have agreed upon this -
Statement 1: No meaning,reason or purpose can be found in a random process.

Agreed.

1. Are we humans, a random process today?

We're not processes, we're things. Our actions may form part of some processes (e.g. global warming) but I don't think human action is random to any significant degree.

I mean, do you think there is any reason and meaning in our lives? Do you feel there is any purpose to our life?

Yes and no. Obviously we do find meaning, purpose, beauty, love, ethics and so on in our lives. I would be the very last person to deny this. But these values are our creations, they are in the eye of the beholder. They aren't built into the universe. There is no property called meaning that some things have.

A pure random number generating machine is used for the weekly lottery. The machine gives the winning number as 17 in this first week of march. The same 17 also happens to be the winning numbers for the remaining weeks in march. After that we don't get a 17 until next year. Surprisingly, the number 17 is again generated throughout march in 2011. Then stops. And then again during march 2012. And so on.

What should be the correct conclusion ?

The evidence here suggests that the machine isn't generating random numbers but always produces 17 in March. Like the scientific theories we discussed earlier, this is a hypothesis not an absolute conclusion. It can be supported or falsified by future results.

I think it might be helpful if we defined what we mean by random. When I say something is random I mean that it cannot be predicted. We call lottery numbers random because we can't predict what they will be. Depending on where you're going with it, this may be important for your lottery example. I say this because a random number generator by definition doesn't produce a 17 every week in March and if we conclude that it does then it means we were wrong to call it random in the first place.

You have this idea of things that are purposeful/meaningful contrasted to things that are random, but it's more complex than that. Consider the movements of the various bodies in the solar system. They are highly non-random in that they can be predicted with great precision many years into the future. It doesn't get much less random. But they are also completely lacking in meaning and purpose. It makes no sense to ask the purpose of the orbit of Jupiter. Many people find determinism/predictability just as challenging to the idea of meaning and purpose.

 

[ivdavid]

You're right in all that you pointed out. But this wasn't what I wanted to focus on. So, I'll try again....

A pure random number generating machine generates the number sequence 16,25,36,49,64.

What should be the correct conclusion -
a) The machine has a property of giving out squares.

OR

b) It's still a random process. A pattern seems to emerge and is being observed and that pattern can be termed a 'property of the machine'(subject to further observation) for human reference but nonetheless, it still is a random process only.

I'm only trying to show that option b) implies
A random process continues to be a random process irrespective of what patterns seem to emerge, as long as it is not biased by any external factor.

 

[happyjoy]

You're right in all that you pointed out. But this wasn't what I wanted to focus on. So, I'll try again....

A pure random number generating machine generates the number sequence 16,25,36,49,64.

What should be the correct conclusion -
a) The machine has a property of giving out squares.

OR

b) It's still a random process. A pattern seems to emerge and is being observed and that pattern can be termed a 'property of the machine'(subject to further observation) for human reference but nonetheless, it still is a random process only.

I'm only trying to show that option b) implies
A random process continues to be a random process irrespective of what patterns seem to emerge, as long as it is not biased by any external factor.

Patterns won't simply seem to emerge, patterns are a fundamental part of the universe on all scales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

 

[logical bob]

I can't accept your definition of a random process as one which is unaffected by external factors. The more we detect patterns in a process, the more we can make predictions about future outcomes, giving us evidence that the process is not random.

Of your two options there, a) is completely out of the question. No random number generator has the property of producing squares. This is simply a matter of definition.

Regarding b), it's possible that a random process might produce a pattern for a while. Allow me to go back to the lottery example because the sums are easier. Let's assume for ease that there are 100 balls in the lottery and we get a 17 every week in March. If the ball selection is random then the chance of getting a 17 for 4 consecutive weeks is 1 in 100 million. The chances of it going on for 5 years are 1 in a number that's written as a 1 followed by 42 zeros. That is very, very unlikely to say the least. You really can't look at a system which continues to produce that result and maintain that it's random.

The only conclusion you can reasonably draw in either example is:

c) The lottery/number generator isn't random after all.

 

[ivdavid]

@ Logical Bob

I've taken some time off to read more. But right now, I'd just quickly slip in a few points that are bothering me...

1. happyjoy has very concisely put what I was trying to get at.

Patterns won't simply seem to emerge, patterns are a fundamental part of the universe on all scales.

I believe the above statement is true. But, concluding from your previous post, there can then be no such thing as a random process - not in a universe that is pervaded with patterns on all scales. Am I oversimplifying things here? Help me out.

Is 'randomness' a name we give to something we can't comprehend completely?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" thus:
Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard.

The above definition could very easily also imply that we are ignorant in understanding the definite aim or purpose, finding the particular direction, comprehending the methods and detecting the patterns. A small child may correctly state that 16,25,36,49 is a non-random sequence of squares while the same child may state that 64,125,216,343 are random numbers because he doesn't know cubes. Are we committing the same error on a much larger scale of complexity?
And if this is the case, then did these patterns just simply exist or were they laid out by someone?

2. Continuing from the previous question, if our way of saying 'i don't know' is 'randomness', then when can we conclude that we actually know something? I also want to know the reason why we keep asking the question 'why'? When do we declare we have found a conclusive answer to the question 'why'?

I just picked up the definition of 'why' from an online site :
For what purpose, reason, or cause; with what intention, justification, or motive

Now, if I'm to question why (not how) the first self-replicating molecule self-replicates, I'd most probably get an answer saying that this question is redundant, that there is no reason or purpose behind this. It does what its property yields it to do. It's just that way. I'd get a similar answer if I asked why the big-bang happened, why earth is suitable for life, why genes have to favor survival and reproduction etc. But if the answer is anyway going to be that there is no purpose to all this, then why would I bother asking the question 'why' in the first place?

When I ask why the apple fell down from the tree, I'm essentially asking for what reason,purpose or cause the apple fell down. After i wade through all the scientific theories on 'how' it falls and 'what' properties it has that yields it to fall, I still haven't gotten the 'why'. Then why did I think of seeking a reason in the first place? Is it that mankind has been motivated to find purpose and reason in everything and all that science has provided him with is observations on what the properties are and how that's the way they should be? Is man being deluded by making himself content with the what's and how's without the why's for which he set out in the first place - or is it that the why's are to be found in a different place? Or am I asking the wrong questions?

Do you really question why random events happen?

Well, If I'm questioning why a random event like an apple falling occurs, then I should be questioning them all. I feel we are too variable in our definition of what can be known and what can never be known by ourselves. Just by redefining 'unknown' to become 'randomness' doesn't make it actually known. It's still unknown and that way, a lot of what man has already found out based on randomness is suspect to actual validation.

Obviously we do find meaning, purpose, beauty, love, ethics and so on in our lives. I would be the very last person to deny this. But these values are our creations, they are in the eye of the beholder.

You see how you've acknowledged that meaning, purpose ,love etc. can arise as values of our creations. So if I'm looking for meaning and purpose in the universe, I should be looking for a Creator. If not, you must acknowledge that you're not looking for meaning and purpose when you're scientifically asking the question 'why'. If this is the case, then what has the discoverer, through all ages, been looking for when he's asked the question 'why'?

I reject this because I see no reason to think that the universe has any intrinsic purpose or meaning. Random events happen all the time with no reason or purpose.

When you say 'you see no reason', do you mean that you see no reason that can be proved empirically? But we already know that science can never provide us the why's - it can provide just the observations. So it is we who conclude through inference. So does your conclusion rest on any reasoning apart from the absence of empirical evidence? Are you sure these are only random events? Have you explored other non empirical 'theories' that provide an answer to what the meaning and purpose of the universe is? Do we, as part of this meaningless universe, also lack overall meaning and purpose irrespective of what we may strive to provide for ourselves through our creations?

Just something for you to chew on... I too will read up more and get back to this discussion.

 

[ivdavid]

On second thoughts, maybe I shouldn't be asking a scientific mind these questions.

What I'm beginning to realize is that the question 'why' is being used in different ways -
A scientist would ask 'why' an apple fell to actually mean - what caused this apple to fall.
A philosopher would ask the same question and mean - what cause has this apple to fall.

I believe man has to be both. If you're only a scientific mind, you can't answer the second question - if you're only a philosopher, you can't answer the first. Hence, a scientific mind cannot conclude on a philosophical subject without exploring it philosophically. So, the scientific mind can never conclude that there is no meaning, purpose in the universe without thinking through it philosophically and not scientifically.

A scientist may ask the question - 'what caused me to think this way' and may find an answer.
But when he asks the philosopher's question of 'what cause have I to think this way', then the scientist has to admit that there is no overall reason or purpose for his existence. He just does what his genes have programmed him to do - the methods vary and this diversity seems to give an illusion of uniqueness and purpose but all the same, he derives his identity from the chemicals.

I'd like to branch off here, discuss another related topic over the next few days in a separate thread and then return here with its conclusion, if any. Thank you all for keeping up the discussion.

 

[logical bob]

But, concluding from your previous post, there can then be no such thing as a random process - not in a universe that is pervaded with patterns on all scales. Am I oversimplifying things here? Help me out.

The universe is pervaded with patterns to a surprising extent, but we still think randomness exists. Radioactive decay seems to be random. There appears to be no way of predicting when an individual particle will decay. Quantum theory predicts virtual particles which pop into existence in pairs for a moment and then cancel each other out. This is also a random event, and it has been empirically verified.

Of course randomness itself gives rise to patterns. If you toss a coin thousands of times you expect to see very close to a 50/50 split between heads and tails. If you didn’t see this you’d think the coin was weighted or non-random in some way.

The above definition could very easily also imply that we are ignorant in understanding the definite aim or purpose, finding the particular direction, comprehending the methods and detecting the patterns. A small child may correctly state that 16,25,36,49 is a non-random sequence of squares while the same child may state that 64,125,216,343 are random numbers because he doesn't know cubes. Are we committing the same error on a much larger scale of complexity?

You’re absolutely correct. We can’t know for certain that something is random, but the more data we have and the more thoroughly it’s analysed without finding a pattern, the stronger the evidence that it is random. But then we can’t know for certain that apples always fall. Science doesn’t deal in absolute certainty but in hypotheses that are supported by evidence.

…when can we conclude that we actually know something?

That’s probably the one big question of modern philosophy, so don’t expect an easy answer.

Now, if I'm to question why (not how) the first self-replicating molecule self-replicates, I'd most probably get an answer saying that this question is redundant, that there is no reason or purpose behind this. It does what its property yields it to do. It's just that way.

Yes.

I'd get a similar answer if I asked why the big-bang happened

We have only one big bang to study. That makes it very hard to draw conclusions. Would Newton have come up with any answers about gravity if he’d only had one apple to observe?

why earth is suitable for life

Actually, I think the question of fine-tuning is the strongest argument for deism/theism. I don’t have a ready answer for it.

why genes have to favor survival and reproduction

That’s actually easy. The ones that didn’t died for obvious reasons, and only the ones that did are left.

I’ve commented on those four separately just to point out that it’s hard to generalize.

Science doesn’t really do “why†I the sense you mean. Neither does it do absolute truth or certainty. On the other hand, science has achieved a huge amount and continues to do so, while it’s doubtful that our metaphysical navel-gazing is any better than what the ancient Greeks were doing. This might indicate that “why,†truth and certainty aren’t actually particularly fruitful ways of thinking.

If I'm questioning why a random event like an apple falling occurs, then I should be questioning them all.

An apple falls when the stalk holding it to the tree can’t counteract the downward force on it. Difficult to predict, but not impossible. In the same way, tossing a coin isn’t really random. We just don’t know the initial conditions precisely enough, making it random for practical purposes.

Just by redefining 'unknown' to become 'randomness' doesn't make it actually known.

Nobody’s defining the unknown to be random. Nobody would research anything if they thought that everything we don’t already know must be random.

You see how you've acknowledged that meaning, purpose ,love etc. can arise as values of our creations. So if I'm looking for meaning and purpose in the universe, I should be looking for a Creator.

Sorry, but that’s lame. I said that meaning etc are human creations. You read Creator. Doesn’t follow.

If not, you must acknowledge that you're not looking for meaning and purpose when you're scientifically asking the question 'why'.

You can’t scientically ask “why†in the sense you mean. It’s not a scientific question.

When you say 'you see no reason', do you mean that you see no reason that can be proved empirically?

The proposition that there is a “why†for all facts isn’t one that’s open to empirical testing so we shouldn’t expect empirical evidence for or against.

So does your conclusion rest on any reasoning apart from the absence of empirical evidence?

Even if I accepted that your God existed, I don’t see why that would provide me with meaning and purpose. Do you ever wonder for what reason God exists? Perhaps the existence of God is itself without meaning.

Do we, as part of this meaningless universe, also lack overall meaning and purpose irrespective of what we may strive to provide for ourselves through our creations?

I think we do lack overall meaning and purpose, yes.

An excessively long post already, but I wanted to say I’ve respected your approach to this discussion. When I realized I was talking to a Christian who doesn’t accept evolution (and especially after your 5 marbles example) I was wondering when I was going to get hit with a crude form of the Design or First Cause arguments. Instead, we’ve reached some key philosophical questions and you’ve asked more questions than you answered. I misjudged you.

 

[ivdavid]

Thanks, Bob. I said it before, I'll say it again - I'll never try to prove God. I've tried it before in other places but that was out of zeal and immaturity. I recant all that. I realize now and firmly acknowledge that it's a matter of faith. What I want to do here is simply discuss various viewpoints and see at what points we begin to differ.

You can’t scientically ask “why†in the sense you mean. It’s not a scientific question.

I hope you read my 2nd post right before your last post. I corrected myself there.

Well, we've agreed upon this.

The proposition that there is a “why†for all facts isn’t one that’s open to empirical testing so we shouldn’t expect empirical evidence for or against.

I said that meaning etc are human creations.

Here, I am a little confused. I too believe that only a mind can create. But what is your idea of 'mind'? Are mind and matter separate or is mind only an expression of matter?

I came across this on wikipedia under meaning(existentialism) and it so reflected your beliefs. Correct me if I'm wrong.

" 'Existence precedes essence' means that a human exists first before they have meaning in life. Meaning is not given, and must be achieved. With objects -- say a knife for example, there is some creator who conceives of an idea or purpose of an object, and then creates it with the essence of the object already present. The essence of what the knife will be exists before the actual knife itself. Sartre, who did not believe in God, believed that if there is no God to have conceived of our essence or nature, then we must come into existence first, and then create our own essence out of interaction with our surroundings and ourselves. "

You see, in the above conclusion, the assumption had to be that there is no God. For you to conclude that there is no meaning and purpose, you'd have to be absolutely sure that God does not exist and trying to do that could make you a type-2 atheist. All I'm suggesting here is that you keep an open mind - you may be surprised.

I think we do lack overall meaning and purpose, yes.

How could you conclude this if not from a scientific viewpoint? But you shouldn't be drawing any philosophical conclusions from a scientific viewpoint. As we agreed upon before, empirical science cannot answer philosophical questions. To say that science has yielded no evidence of reason and meaning, and therefore there is no reason and meaning is making a far-fetched conclusion. It only means science can't provide it. Your stance could be that you don't know as of now, if meaning and purpose exist in the universe. Am I wrong in inferring this?

Even if I accepted that your God existed, I don’t see why that would provide me with meaning and purpose.

Mind creates meaning.
Your belief states that there was only matter in the beginning - there's mind now in us humans - this mind creates meaning.
My belief states that there was the Mind in the beginning - the Mind created meaning - created matter - created us humans with minds - hence, we derive meaning from the Mind.
What God asks us to do and why, how we benefit and what we are to hope for, etc. has been clearly laid out in the Bible - I'm assuming you've already read it and wouldn't want me to expound it again.

The difference of opinion would be on whether mind is actually part of matter or if mind is over matter.

 

[logical bob]

You're perceptive to bring in existentialism at this point. I wouldn't by any means endorse everything that Sartre said, but he did have important points to make.

I don't think you have to be an atheist to find something helpful in that way of thinking. OK, you believe that God created you with a purpose in mind, but I take it you also believe that you have the freedom to accept or reject that purpose. As I understand Christianity, you have to choose to accept Jesus and you can choose not to. So God is your source of meaning only if you choose to make him so. You still choose and create your meaning for yourself.

Sartre was an atheist, but existentialism draws on the ideas of Kierkegaad, who wasn't, and one of its main thinkers was Karl Jaspers, who wasn't either. Many modern theologians have taken existentialism into account in their thinking.

This is why I say that there isn't any intrinic meaning. It's not a scientifc statement and it doesn't require atheism.

You also raise the problem of mind and matter, another huge issue in itself. For the record I think mind is an emergent property of matter rather than something immaterial. I can defend that position in detail if you want, but I think it's a bit of a tangent to the current discussion. At most, it refutes the argument that God is needed to explain how mind first appeared in a previously mindless world. It would be perfectly possible to believe that mind is immaterial and still be an atheist, or to believe that mind is immaterial and deny that the universe has unltimate meaning.

 

[ivdavid]

We've come a long way, haven't we?

Anyway, from where you stand, you would believe that since meaning is created by our minds, there isn't any independent concept of good/evil, right/wrong, moral/immoral etc. (I think you're discussing something similar elsewhere)
These concepts then should only be part of the creations of our minds. If so, then what is your opinion on what our conscience is? Since there is no real concept of right/wrong in the universe of matter, our conscience cannot actually tell us right and wrong.

So what exactly is its purpose? Why does it work the way it does? Just curious about the theory you endorse...

 

[logical bob]

We've come a long way indeed.

OK, conscience. I suppose your conscience is an aspect of the feelings and emotions you have which you use to make moral judgements. When you say your conscience tells you that it's wrong to steal you mean you feel bad at the idea of stealing, and you express that feeling by making the judgement. If you have a guilty conscience you're feeling discomfort because your actions and your feelings don't match up.

I take it you'd describe conscience as a kind of detector which identifies independent moral properties. I'll try to explain why moral properties can't be independent. If you conclude that Vienna is the capital of Austria, or that the average yearly rainfall in the Amazon basin is 80 inches, you don't have to act or feel in any particular way because of that. If you conclude that stealing is wrong then either you will make an effort not to steal, or when you do steal you'll have negative emotions about it. You can't think stealing is wrong without there being some effect on your actions or emotions. You can't completely ignore your own moral judgements. Those who have no such reaction at all are called psychopaths.

So action and emotion are an integral part of moral judgement, but not of factual judgement. This shows that moral and factual judgements are different and also that there is something unavoidably subjective about moral judgement.

 

[ivdavid]

I didn't understand that completely...I think I need examples to be able to understand...

Anyway, from what I've understood so far, you're saying that the conscience is an indicator of an internal contradiction between my moral judgement and my action/desire.

Say, i'm a small kid who believes that stealing is wrong. There are some sweets in the kitchen that my mother has expressly asked me not to eat until she gives it to me a few days later. I also know that I have to share the sweets with my brother when they are distributed. And my desire to eat them right now is overpowering. I decide to steal some in the middle of the night. My conscience pricks. I try and ignore it and go ahead and eat a few sweets. I do the same the next night and the next. Each time my conscience pricks, I ignore it. I justify and tell myself that stealing these sweets (which can be bought again) isn't exactly wrong. Over the next few days, it's almost a habit to take some sweets. After the first few trips, my conscience stops bothering me completely.

To get some things cleared out first -

I suppose your conscience is an aspect of the feelings and emotions you have which you use to make moral judgements.

1. By 'moral judgement', you are referring to our moral code, right? ie from the above example, 'moral judgement' would refer to my initial belief that 'stealing is wrong', right? It should also refer to my later belief that 'stealing those sweets is right', am i correct?

2. Do I make moral judgements based on what my conscience tells me is right/wrong or is it the other way around - does my conscience tell me right/wrong based on the moral judgements that I already have made?
3. If it's the former, how does my conscience know what is right/wrong all by itself?
4. If it's the latter, you must be implying that we get our moral judgements from our society and culture,parents,religious books etc. - most are unconsciously learnt in our formative years, others much later, right?

5. In the above example, I had concluded that 'stealing those sweets wasn't wrong' as my updated moral judgement and still my conscience continued to prick for a few days. If my conscience reflects what my moral judgement is and my moral judgement is something that I frame in my mind, then why didn't my conscience reflect the updated moral judgement immediately?
6. If it's on account of some habit formation, and after those initial days my conscience stops bothering me, does it show that we can train our conscience as we like? Is there something I'm missing out here?

You can't think stealing is wrong without there being some effect on your actions or emotions.

7. I agree to the above statement. But what happened to my conscience when it stopped bothering me after a few days? Did I successfully 'brainwash' my conscience into thinking that 'stealing those sweets wasn't wrong' thereby solving the internal contradiction between my moral judgement and my actions?

Too many questions, i know... but I hope you wouldn't mind. I'll continue after I get a fair idea of your take on this.

 

[logical bob]

Hi David. I've drafted a couple of responses and I'm not convinced that I can account for everything in your questions in a way I'm happy with.

The kid in your example has conflicting desires. I find it difficult to identify which factors are moral. For example, although the kid clearly on one level doesn't want to take the sweets this could be for many reasons. It could be through fear of punishment, because of the potential reward of being thought a good son and brother and the benefits that would bring or because obeying mother is almost a conditioned response. None of those seem like moral reasons. So I thought that perhaps moral impulses are those where you feel guilty when you go against them. But is guilt really different to other forms of psychological discomfort?

And what do we mean by conscience anyway? There are various conflicting factors in our behaviour. It seems a little arbitrary to label some of these as conscience. Is the thing that tells you what you think is right the same thing that troubles you when you do what you think is wrong? I'm not so sure.

Regarding your question 2, I think our judgements follow our feelings. The kid says taking the sweets is wrong because the thought of it troubles him. But sometimes the reverse can be true. An action that goes against our social rules and norms (or even our own established patterns of behaviour) can make us feel very uncomfortable and then the judgement causes the feeling. But is that moral or just psychological?

Regarding 3, nothing in us “knows†what’s right or wrong. There is no right/wrong “out there†to be known. Our emotional reaction simply is what it is.

Re 4, all those factors still shape our reactions because our psychology is largely formed by our family, society and upbringing.

5. Because when your conscience is troubling you, you still feel that what you’re doing is wrong. While you have that feeling you can’t make the judgement that taking the sweets is OK.

6 and 7. Yes, I would imagine you can train your conscience. Something that’s troubling the first time you do it can become routine. But again, that doesn’t have to be moral. The more you do something the more routine and the less disturbing it becomes. And sometimes you enjoy something more because you think it’s wrong and this thrill makes you more likely to act against your moral beliefs – the thrill of the forbidden.

I’m afraid that if I didn’t explain myself clearly before you’ll find me particularly obtuse this time.

In summary
1. People are too complex to explain in simple terms
2. It’s very hard, and perhaps impossible, to properly define what behaviour is moral and what isn’t
3. I don’t see that any of these difficulties would be improved by suggesting there was an objective moral standard
4. Where are you going with all this anyway?

 

[ivdavid]

4. Where are you going with all this anyway?

You know where I come from - I am a Christian believer who holds the Bible as the infallible Word of God. The account of creation is given in the Bible. God's revelations through His prophets, apostles and angels and His miraculous signs are recorded in the Bible. Historical events that reveal God's ways and nature are recorded in the Bible. His Son - Jesus Christ is written about in the Bible. The Bible also states that we would be judged on the Day of the Lord according to our deeds based on the moral law God has written in our hearts. This law is witnessed by our conscience which excuses/accuses our thoughts.

Now these are what I believe in. I believe in Christ, having experienced Him in truth. So naturally, I wonder how other people find meaning apart from Christ. I am curious to know what other people believe in and at what points exactly they diverge from the Christian faith.
As I said earlier, I want to know how a pure atheist would interpret the above revelations of God. This is where all my discussions and questions are aimed at. My observations so far -

1. Creation is debated with evolution, the latter claiming verifiable evidence against the former. I have not read much on evolution and don't think I'd ever understand it completely. I'd need you to discuss evolution but we shall do it later in a 'Christianity and science thread'.

2. The Bible is usually ignored by the atheists. They should read it if not for anything else but to understand what we Christians believe in.

3. Conscience and the absolute moral law is again regarded as some property of the human species by evolution or natural selection and they are simply what they are. (You'll have to understand that what seems obvious to you takes a lot of imagining for me because i've never thought that way ever before.) I'd like to take this discussion further in future posts to understand your view better.

Right now, the obvious points of difference are -

a) an initial state of matter that exists the way it is for no purpose
vs
God, an eternal perfect Being with a Mind.

b) random activity induced formation of new complex particles
vs
God's creative work

c) evolutionary life forms through common ancestry
vs
God's unique creations

d) evolutionary rise of mind from matter in humans
vs
God's breathing of spirit into man, who became a living soul.

e) natural selection induced rise of emotions, reflected by conscience
vs
God's moral laws written in our hearts that are witnessed by our conscience

Am I mistaken anywhere so far?

My major problem lies not in the observations of science - just its interpretations. Now I know that you prefer the scientific view to the religious view on account of the verifiable evidence it presents and not the faith that religion requires. But I'm confused over what actually accounts for evidence - so many Christians all over the world experience Christ. I'm not putting this forth as an argument for God's existence, I'm only asking how science accounts for this. I'd even ask how so many other people of so many other religions have some spiritual experience. That's for another topic of discussion.

I've used this post only to state my stance and intent. I'd like to now explore the evidences of evolution. By evidences, i mean actual tangible evidences that sustain the theory of evolution. I'd like to see all the possible inferences from the raw observations before considering the various models and theories that are accepted now. So, I'd like to educate myself a little on this over the net and other threads. I hope to continue this discussion after such time in the science board.... until then, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[logical bob]

This discussion has been a pleasure and I look forward to picking it up some time in the future. I'll hopefully do a better job then with the question of ethics - I didn't explain myself well in this thread.
We didn't discuss the Bible but we should do at some point. From what I've read of the science forum I'd recommend talking to The Barbarian - he certainly seems to know his stuff far more than I do.

Take care until we meet again,

bob.

 

[kpd560]

So basically the question I would like discussed is what specific 'evidence' would change your mind...

God knows that all it would take for me to believe is the occasional regrowth of amputees limbs after prayer but he chooses not to do this. There are only two possible conclusions, either God doesn't exist or he doesn't want me to believe.

 

[seekandlisten]

So basically the question I would like discussed is what specific 'evidence' would change your mind...

God knows that all it would take for me to believe is the occasional regrowth of amputees limbs after prayer but he chooses not to do this. There are only two possible conclusions, either God doesn't exist or he doesn't want me to believe.

I would assume the 'scientific approach' would be a better premise for not believing in God but that's just me.

Edited for clarity: What I mean is the in weighing in the 'evidence' for and against I understand the coming to the conclusion that 'God' not existing is a logical assumption, or at least until further 'evidence' is provided. After all, the 'evidence' in favor of 'God' is all over the place and even those that do believe 'God' exists can't agree amongst themselves so it becomes who's 'version' of 'God' is right. So the question becomes do all 'Gods' exist, or is it no 'Gods' exist, or one 'God' exists? Quite the dilemma.

I think the amputees limb regrowing after prayer is ridiculous but I guess if that's the 'evidence' you would need it's not really unreasonable because after all, if the bible is indeed infallible(I personally don't think it is), it states that 'all things are possible through God'.

cheers

 

[TanNinety]

I agree with a lot of things you have to say about religion, seekandlisten, but here's where we differ

I would assume the 'scientific approach' would be a better premise for not believing in God but that's just me.

I was going to ask what the scientific approach was but since you edited for clarity I will go with that.

Edited for clarity: What I mean is the in weighing in the 'evidence' for and against I understand the coming to the conclusion that 'God' not existing is a logical assumption, or at least until further 'evidence' is provided.

I am a bit confused here. Can you tell me what definition of ‘assumption’ you are subscribing to in your above statement?
I see you are saying that the conclusion(God not existing) is a logical assumption. How is that a scientific approach? Doesn’t science work the way where you draw conclusions from assumptions and not conclusion being an assumption? That just seems circular to me.

After all, the 'evidence' in favor of 'God' is all over the place and even those that do believe 'God' exists can't agree amongst themselves so it becomes who's 'version' of 'God' is right. So the question becomes do all 'Gods' exist, or is it no 'Gods' exist, or one 'God' exists? Quite the dilemma.

Experiments showed electrons were particles. Experiments showed electrons were waves. The evidence was ‘all over the place’. Quite the dilemma until particle-wave duality of sub atomic entities became norm. During this dilemma, no one said, electrons didn’t exist. They said, we don’t completely understand the phenomena. That’s how science works.

I think the amputees limb regrowing after prayer is ridiculous

I am quite frankly very surprised here!
Amputee limb re-growing is DATA! How can you say you want a scientific approach and think data is ridiculous?
Science already cannot dabble with personal subjective evidence. But imagine a known handicap guy now suddenly has a fully grown hand. This hand is every which way examinable by Science. Sure this still doesn’t give science the opportunity to say ‘God exists’ because we can examine the re-grown hand but not the deity underlying it. To be honest, kpd560’s want for concrete data seems more scientific than yours.