Teleology And Human Ethics...

[JimL]

Charles how on earth can one show how or why an eternal being exists? Your question is irrational, like your fictional objective ethics.

Seer, there is no reason how or why an eternal being exists, nor is there a reason how or why an eternal universe exists. Thats basically the point I've been making. Your wanting for there to be a reason and purpose for your existence, is not a good reason for believing there is a reason and purpose for your existence.

[seer]

Seer, there is no reason how or why an eternal being exists, nor is there a reason how or why an eternal universe exists. Thats basically the point I've been making. Your wanting for there to be a reason and purpose for your existence, is not a good reason for believing there is a reason and purpose for your existence.

Right and that is why Charlie's question is irrational. And just because I want a reason or purpose for life doesn't mean there isn't one. After all belief in the otherworldly seems to be the default position for mankind. Atheism is clearly abnormal.

[JimL]

Right and that is why Charlie's question is irrational. And just because I want a reason or purpose for life doesn't mean there isn't one. After all belief in the otherworldly seems to be the default position for mankind. Atheism is clearly abnormal.

Default position or not, your argument is irrelevant with respect to what is real or not. Just because you want there to be a reason or purpose for your existence is not a legitimate reason, i.e. a reason based on logic, to believe there is a purpose either. Btw, the majority of the people in the world are not Christians, shall I conclude from that fact alone that christianity is abnormal?

[seer]

Default position or not, your argument is irrelevant with respect to what is real or not. Just because you want there to be a reason or purpose for your existence is not a legitimate reason, i.e. a reason based on logic, to believe there is a purpose either. Btw, the majority of the people in the world are not Christians, shall I conclude from that fact alone that christianity is abnormal?

But you should see atheism as abnormal, perhaps we have such a strong pull towards the spiritual because we have an intuitive knowledge of its reality. Just saying... And I'm not sure what you mean by logic, atheism is not very logical. IMHO.

[shunyadragon]

To your definition:



The reason for why something is done or created. What was the reason or purpose for nature creating life?

Your missing the 'or,' which is not an 'and.'

[Anomaly]

The belief in a Divine reason and purpose for you and I is a question of belief and not based on 'objective verifiable evidence. If it were a good argument based on evidence it would have merit. Nonetheless the natural explanation based on the objective verifiable evidence is more than adequate to describe the purpose and reason of natural processes behind the nature of our physical existence and evolution by definition you provided.

[shunyadragon]

Only from the perspective of defending Methodological Naturalism, and NOT Philosophical Naturalism. The problem is that when it comes to science, the Traditional Christian arguments are most often inconsistent, bad science, and even more often genuinely terrible. Actually, the atheists, and the agnostics at least get their science right.

You use the same circular reasoning intrinsic to all such arguments:
1. Truth is only found in objective, empirically testable theories.
2. A system of belief must be true; a false system of belief is counterintuitive and counterproductive.
3. Theism is not an empirically testable system of belief.
4. Therefore, theism has no justification as a true system of belief.
5. Naturalism is based on strong empirical evidences and has a firm warrant for truth.
6. Therefore naturalism has justification as a true system of belief.

Most definitely NOT my argument. Please cite me and represent me accurately.

1. [Knowledge of our physical existence; ie science] is only found in objective, empirically testable theories [and hypothesis].
2. A system of belief must be coherent and compatible beyond the claimed foundation of ancient scripture. Traditional Theists such as Jews, Christians and Muslims, are grounded in the belief that there scripture was in some way Divinely revealed or confirmed as is. In reality the ancient texts such as Genesis and Exodus are based on ancient mythology and without known authors.
3. Theism is not an empirically testable system of belief. True!
4. <delete> Fallible humans are not capable of comprehending absolute truths.
5. [Methodological] Naturalism is based on strong empirical evidences and has a firm warrant for [the knowledge of our physical existence.]
6. Therefore naturalism has justification as a true system of belief.

So your , being circular in nature, seems not to have much merit itself.

Be specific this is meaningless. Science based on objective verifiable evidence is not circular.

vBoth naturalism and theism are at root systems of belief.

Philosophical Naturalism and theism are systems of belief. Methodological Naturalism is not.

A much too an idealistic expectation to be real.

Vague, not answerable.

I am TE, scientist, and yes I believe God Created everything. No the evolutionary model does not disprove God. It just demonstrates that the ancient Theist views, are based on ancient mythology are poorly grounded in reality.

And given advances in quantum physics, naturalism, at least its mechanistic aspect, is starting to look shaky anyway.

No, misconceptions and misunderstanding of science. The mechanistic aspects of Newtonian physics are no longer valid one the very small scale. There are of course many unknowns, but modern physics and cosmology remains well grounded in predictable behavior on the very small scale, even predicting the existence of particles and behavior before they are discovered.

Vague challenges of 'shaky' as far as our Physics is concerned are based on 'shaky' arguments from ignorance.

What is terribly 'shaky' is the belief in the reliability of ancient scripture like Genesis, which are grounded more in mythology. This is becoming more apparent as time passes.

[seer]

Your missing the 'or,' which is not an 'and.'

What? Did the laws of nature have a reason or purpose for creating life or not?

[shunyadragon]

What? Did the laws of nature have a reason or purpose for creating life or not?

The reason is life is a natural result of the laws of nature that caused the nature of our physical existence as it is, the purpose is all cause and effect events in our physical universe happen only within the limits of the laws of nature and natural processes.

Creation is theological/philosophical belief. From the scientific perspective laws of nature and natural processes do not Create anything. Cause and effect outcomes and 'things' are a result of natural law and natural processes.

[seer]

The reason is life is a natural result of the laws of nature that caused the nature of our physical existence as it is, the purpose is all cause and effect events in our physical universe happen only within the limits of the laws of nature and natural processes.

Your first part is correct, like I already said, the second part is not. There is no purpose, by definition, in cause and effect.

From the scientific perspective laws of nature and natural processes do not Create anything. Cause and effect outcomes and 'things' are a result of natural law and natural processes.

Create:to make or bring into existence something new, bring (something) into existence


So natural forces did create something new into existence, life.

[Anomaly]

Science based on objective verifiable evidence is not circular.

I concede naturalism has warrant for belief as a theory. The issue is that the naturalist turns to the same analytic process to interpret states of affairs

3. Theism is not an empirically testable system of belief. True!

A much too an idealistic expectation to be real.

Idealistic in what sense? Where I come from the notion that everyone has presuppositions built into their beliefs is just common sense. Are you disagreeing just for the sake of disagreement?

Vague challenges of 'shaky' as far as our Physics is concerned are based on 'shaky' arguments from ignorance.

Actually, quantum reality is being interpreted in a number of different ways, by groups and organizations, most of whom probably have vested interests in seeing it turn out in their favor. I was only referring to this multitude of interpretive responses to a part of science still in adolescence, if not its infancy. What shaky arguments from ignorance are you talking about, those that interpret the science in favor of theism?

[JimL]

Your first part is correct, like I already said, the second part is not. There is no purpose, by definition, in cause and effect.



Create:to make or bring into existence something new, bring (something) into existence


So natural forces did create something new into existence, life.

The natural forces, if you want to put it that way, creates new things from out of itself, not new things from out of nothing. The cause is in the effect, and the effect is in the cause. But, if everything is one in the same thing, in its many different forms, then cause and effect is just a way of talking, it isn't really a fundemental description of reality. The universe just is, it simply changes according to its own nature.

[seer]

The natural forces, if you want to put it that way, creates new things from out of itself, not new things from out of nothing. The cause is in the effect, and the effect is in the cause. But, if everything is one in the same thing, in its many different forms, then cause and effect is just a way of talking, it isn't really a fundemental description of reality. The universe just is, it simply changes according to its own nature.

Then it does create. Life from non-life, consciousness from non-consciousness.

[JimL]

Then it does create. Life from non-life, consciousness from non-consciousness.

Well you can call it what you want, but creation is usually thought of as the product of a mind. A better term, I would suggest, is that it evolves.

[seer]

Well you can call it what you want, but creation is usually thought of as the product of a mind. A better term, I would suggest, is that it evolves.

But if you think about it something new really was created, things not inherent to matter and energy - biological life and consciousness.