Secular Morality?

[Tassman]

I used actual dictionary definitions. Primatologists and biologists do get to change definitions to fit their bias. Or yours.

No Tass, it is a rather old idea. Going back three thousand years.

The notion that we were all "created by the same Mind"

Oh, you mean like the claim of an eternal multi-verse! Right. Or that there are dozens or hundreds copies of you and me in parallel universes having this very same debate?

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PD...erse_sciam.pdf

So if science says so it MUST be true, right Tass?

And BTW Tass if the multiverse theory is correct determinism is out the window:

, it would apply within each universe of the multiverse if, as seems likely, multiverse theory is shown to be correct.

That definition seems to make useless the phrase "in kind."

You think, how come?

[seer]

Sure, and next they will be telling us that bees for instance are rational. Oh wait, they already are!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22864869

The notion that we were all "created by the same Mind", may well go back a long time but this does not alter the fact that it’s a bald assertion. Not to mention that there is no good evidence that such a "Mind” exists in the first place.

There is as much "evidence" for God as for your hypothetical multi-verse. Yet you choose to believe in that. You choose to believe that matter and energy are eternal - with no evidence whatsoever. You choose to believe that non -rational forces created rational creatures, you choose to believe that non-conscious forces created consciousness. You choose to believe that life sprang from lifeless processes. You faith is great Tass - you should be commended !

It may mean just that but you’re leaping ahead of the science.

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PD...erse_sciam.pdf

Yes, you will believe all sorts of nonsense if "science says."

Well no “determinism” isn’t “out the window”, it would apply within each universe of the multiverse if, as seems likely, multiverse theory is shown to be correct.

Did you even understand Tegmark's argument in the link?

[seer]

I don't think I ever thought with conviction that someone's argumentation did knock out totally the proposition that human intelligence differs in kind. Of course you (JimL, Tass, Jaecp, . . . ) may argue the probability that the difference is in degree only, but as far as I know any probability (that is, statistics) data is at best tentative.

Please, no matter how often a false assertion is made, cannot make it true.

This is my problem. This whole thing started with Tass suggesting that primates are in some sense "moral." Then it spun out of control into these other areas. Like I have made know more than once, I have no problem with similarities between us and other animals. Many creatures have knuckles for instance. As a Christian I would say that those similarities are due to the fact that we were created by the same God. But to say that when we see a behavior in another creature, that looks similar to what we do, and automatically assume that their rational for doing so is similar to ours - is a leap. Tass linked a talk where it was suggested that a monkey had a sense of fairness. But we are simply reading into that. Perhaps the monkey rather had a sense of envy. Or perhaps he had a sense of neither and just reacted instinctually. Perhaps we just don't have any idea. Which is probably the case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

[Truthseeker]

Seer, when your debate opponent uses a word for the first time in the debate, and gives the word a particular meaning that you think is wrong, it's usually "cricket" to let that definition stand. Of course should he equivocate the meaning of the word, you can go ahead and cry, the equivocation fallacy!

[seer]

Seer, when your debate opponent uses a word for the first time in the debate, and gives the word a particular meaning that you think is wrong, it's usually "cricket" to let that definition stand. Of course should he equivocate the meaning of the word, you can go ahead and cry, the equivocation fallacy!

Well no, we can't just invent definitions. Words have meaning. That would be chaos.

[shunyadragon]

Well no, we can't just invent definitions. Words have meaning. That would be chaos.

Why not!?!?!!? We do it all the time. English adds words and new definitions all the time.

[Tassman]

Sure, and next they will be telling us that bees for instance are rational. Oh wait, they already are!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22864869

There is as much "evidence" for God as for your hypothetical multi-verse.

no credible evidence for the existence of a deity.

OTOH there is very good reason for thinking that our universe could be just one of an infinite number of universes making up a "multiverse", because this concept is supported by numerous physics theories which independently point to such a conclusion. In fact, as previously stated, many physicists think the existence of hidden universes is more likely than not.

Yet you choose to believe in that. You choose to believe that matter and energy are eternal - with no evidence whatsoever. You choose to believe that non -rational forces created rational creatures, you choose to believe that non-conscious forces created consciousness. You choose to believe that life sprang from lifeless processes. You faith is great Tass - you should be commended !

No! I look at the evidence as presented by reputable physicists, whereas you dismiss all such hypotheses based merely upon a Logical Fallacy, i.e. an Argument from Incredulity.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity or how or how you fall back upon your preferred option, i.e. the one that promises you eternal life, namely: "God-did-it".

Yes, you will believe all sorts of nonsense if "science says."

You mean as opposed to believing in no-nonsense things like a deity that is simultaneously three persons in one God and a God/Man who is simultaneously fully God and fully man...sensible stuff like that?

The point about science is that, unlike other disciplines, it can provide substantive evidence to support its assertions. Theology can't.

Did you even understand Tegmark's argument in the link?

Well no, we can't just invent definitions. Words have meaning. That would be chaos.

Truthseeker is correct. The definitions and usage of "reason" as used by the primatologists and evolutionary biologists I've linked to has been consistent throughout. It has been seer who's been trying to redefine the word to better suit his argument.

[seer]

We've already agreed that the seemingly rational behaviour of social insects such as bees and ants is largely instinctive rather than consciously goal-directed. So why do you keep quoting examples of their behaviour? The argument’s concerned with the higher functioning creatures such as our fellow primates.

But the bee behavior certainly LOOKS goal-directed. Just like with primates - it looks goal-directed. But I have no reason to assume that it is. I can't read a monkey's mind.

OTOH there is very good reason for thinking that our universe could be just one of an infinite number of universes making up a "multiverse", because this concept is supported by numerous physics theories which independently point to such a conclusion. In fact, as previously stated, many physicists think the existence of hidden universes is more likely than not.

False Tass, there is zero physical evidence for a multiverse. If there is please link it. But most of the people in this field are atheists, so like you, they desperately want it be true.

Hence, because you don’t understand how “non-rational forces created rational creatures”, or how “non-conscious forces created consciousness” or how “life sprang from lifeless processes”, you fall back upon your preferred option, i.e. the one that promises you eternal life, namely: "God-did-it".

I don't understand it? No one understands it. Now if you can show exactly when and how nature did these things you many have a point. Until then your belief is no more credible than mine. As a matter of fact mine makes more sense. Life come from Life, rationality coming from Rationality, consciousness from from Consciousness.

You mean as opposed to believing in no-nonsense things like a deity that is simultaneously three persons in one God and a God/Man who is simultaneously fully God and fully man...sensible stuff like that?

The point about science is that, unlike other disciplines, it can provide substantive evidence to support its assertions. Theology can't.

Yes, the nonsense that there are perhaps hundreds of copies of us having this very same debate. You will believe anything Tass if "science says." BTW Tass, am I debating the real you or a copy? How would you know?

Truthseeker is correct. The definitions and usage of "reason" as used by the primatologists and evolutionary biologists I've linked to has been consistent throughout. It has been seer who's been trying to redefine the word to better suit his argument.

So we then can define what bees do as reasoning? Does the idea of reasoning then lose all meaning? And stop lying about me Tass - I did not redefine anything, I linked accepted and dictionary definitions. You just don't like them.

[Jaecp]

But the bee behavior certainly LOOKS goal-directed. Just like with primates - it looks goal-directed. But I have no reason to assume that it is. I can't read a monkey's mind.

Except this has already been commented on numerous times, particularly with Jim and the Raven's.

If you're going to keep spouting PRATT's try to be less boring about it.

[Truthseeker]

There’s no credible evidence for the existence of a deity.

I don't know what you mean by "credible." I do see the universe itself as evidence of God. To be sure, it's not decisive, but then practically all evidence is not decisive.

If someone points out the "beyond reasonable doubt" criterion in capital trials, I would still say, "All evidence is practically not decisive."

[Jaecp]

I don't know what you mean by "credible." I do see the universe itself as evidence of God. To be sure, it's not decisive, but then practically all evidence is not decisive.

If someone points out the "beyond reasonable doubt" criterion in capital trials, I would still say, "All evidence is practically not decisive."

There is a problem in that line of argument though. Which god? There is a line in the Koran where Mo says to some tribal person that if they want to prove their god is the right one to have the sun rise in the west, because it is Allah who makes it rise in the east. Even if we accept that the universe existing is evidence for a god, it doesn't help us narrow it down from there, you know?

Likewise, why is the existence of the universe evidence of god? Heck, at one point many things that humans didn't have a solid explanation for was used as evidence for god. Paley wasn't the first, after all. Over time though most of these have been shown to be the result of natural causes and the ability for someone to argue the necessity of a god pushed farther and farther back.

[Tassman]

But the bee behavior certainly LOOKS goal-directed. Just like with primates - it looks goal-directed. But I have no reason to assume that it is. I can't read a monkey's mind.

False Tass, there is zero physical evidence for a multiverse. If there is please link it.

Once again there is very good reason for thinking that our universe could be just one of an infinite number of universes making up a "multiverse", because this concept is supported by numerous physics theories which independently point to such a conclusion. In fact, as previously stated, many physicists think the existence of hidden universes is more likely than not. If this conflicts with your religious presuppositions then that's your problem.

But most of the people in this field are atheists, so like you, they desperately want it be true.

I don't understand it? No one understands it. Now if you can show exactly when and how nature did these things you many have a point. Until then your belief is no more credible than mine. As a matter of fact mine makes more sense. Life come from Life, rationality coming from Rationality, consciousness from from Consciousness.

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Comple...rom_simplicity

Yes, the nonsense that there are perhaps hundreds of copies of us having this very same debate. You will believe anything Tass if "science says." BTW Tass, am I debating the real you or a copy? How would you know?

In this theory all

So we then can define what bees do as reasoning? Does the idea of reasoning then lose all meaning? And stop lying about me Tass - I did not redefine anything, I linked accepted and dictionary definitions. You just don't like them.

See above.

I don't know what you mean by "credible." I do see the universe itself as evidence of God. To be sure, it's not decisive, but then practically all evidence is not decisive.

If someone points out the "beyond reasonable doubt" criterion in capital trials, I would still say, "All evidence is practically not decisive."

How do you know that the universe is not a consequence of highly intelligent aliens devising a Matrix-like virtual reality for purposes of their own?

[seer]

Once again there is very good reason for thinking that our universe could be just one of an infinite number of universes making up a "multiverse", because this concept is supported by numerous physics theories which independently point to such a conclusion. In fact, as previously stated, many physicists think the existence of hidden universes is more likely than not. If this conflicts with your religious presuppositions then that's your problem.


In this theory all of us would be the real “us”. Interesting that your sole basis for dismissing an hypothesis is because “you don’t like it”.

No Tass, there are copies because in time there is an original. The first Tass, even if you only came about a second before the other Tasses. Max Tegmark himself, calls them copies. And as he stated in his paper this is where any multi-verse theory must lead. So am I speaking to the original Tass or a copy? And this is the nonsense you are willing to believe to keep a creation event, and a Divine foot out of the door.

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PD...erse_sciam.pdf

[seer]

Except this has already been commented on numerous times, particularly with Jim and the Raven's.

If you're going to keep spouting PRATT's try to be less boring about it.

On what? Do you, or any one else, know the Raven's mind? The Monkey's mind? Do you know how they get, mentally, from behavior A to behavior B? You are making an assumption, plain and simple.

[Jaecp]

On what? Do you, or any one else, know the Raven's mind? The Monkey's mind? Do you know how they get, mentally, from behavior A to behavior B? You are making an assumption, plain and simple.

I think they word you meant to use there was inferrence

Oh, and on everything? Your entire reply style is based upon a lack of knowledge in the fields your discussing, some google searches to find scientific articles to quote mine, and flat rejection of anything that contradicts your religious beliefs.

So so boring