Exaeus

Actually, no. You're leading this issue down a rather different path. You're asking me how would I determine if this hypothetical organism fulfils the falsification criteria, and I replied that I can't possibly know until you actually name this hypothetical organism because I don't even have any idea what kind of organism it is, much less how to do any research on it. That's a very different issue from not being able to provide the falsification criteria, which I've already done. LuftWaffle, I sense we have a massive disconnect here because you apparently do not understand what fitness means in biology. Fitness is a description of the degree to which a species is able survive and propagate its genes. You measure a species' fitness by its ability to survive, not the other way round. Why haven't you responded to my arguments I made in reply to your examples? I have already explained to you that, of the examples you raised, three are not considered as scientific facts and one of them is flat-out wrong. As for what you call "sound Christian arguments", can you please explain exactly what sort of evidence has been produced to support the premises of these so-called sound arguments? LuftWaffle, I hate to disappoint you, but Premise #1 is a classic example of argument from ignorance. If it weren't, you would be raising solid evidence in support of it, instead of challenging me to name an alternative to what you're proposing as the only possible answer because you can't imagine anything else is possible! As for your argument about immaterialism, it is laughably false since generating energy - a non-material entity - from physical matter is well-known and taught even to grade school children in science class. Last but not least, I've repeatedly explained to you how we as an intelligent species have attempted to explain our hard-wired actions that urge us to survive by inventing the concept of morality. Can you please be specific about what you need further explanation about instead of simply repeating the same question over and over? I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I thought we were already in agreement that morality is partly objective and partly not. Also, the sad fact is that not everything atheists believe in is true, although I'd like to imagine that we have an easier time admitting it because we don't have the threat of burning in hell until the end of time hanging over our heads. LuftWaffle, I'm afraid I have to admit that I'm losing the plot more and more here with each prose-rich but facts-light paragraph you type out. I believe I've already clearly stated that we cannot predict evolutionary pathways; can you show us an example of what "playing by evolution's goals" means? Because it makes no sense at all to me. I'm not sure if this is the answer you're expecting, but actually, yes there is. http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:tACLCjsMgTAJ:scholar.google.com/+golden+rule+genes&hl=en&as_sdt=1,5 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2006/08/the-golden-rule-christian-altruism/ http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060529_altruism.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101108072309.htm http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/8/1460.abstract LuftWaffle, the problem here is that in your scientific illiteracy, you assume that genes are solely responsible for our behavior and we are helpless to change them. Secondly, we condemn Hitler and praise Mother Teresa because it's in our best interests to weed out genes that promote destructive tendencies and encourage beneficial ones. In our quest for survival, we do not care what motivates Hitler. We only know that if the Nazis were allowed to run unchecked the entire world would be overrun and our survival put in peril. We may lash out against Hitler in the name of morality, but in fact it's because deep down inside we instinctively understand that Hitler is a threat to us all. Of course not. However, it is heavily hypocritical and quite double-sided to absolve yourself of all responsibility to back up your claims while demanding it of everyone else. Not to mention that, all things considered, it doesn't really make for a useful discussion.

That's an interesting question, but another question popped into my head as I was reading it: where do theists get the moral code to judge God by and decide that God is good? I'll start another thread if this question is deemed off-topic.

BTW LuftWaffle, I'm not sure what your scientific background or level of scientific literacy is, but here's another article regarding fossilized pre-Cambrian soft-bodied organisms. The abstract of the paper explains the gist of it in a relatively straightforward manner, IMHO: http://geol.queensu.ca/people/narbonne/NarbonneAREPS2005Final.pdf

Based on the fact that Premise #1 of this moral law, which is simply an argument from ignorance, has been shown to be false since there is another possibility that "objective" moral laws may have been derived from. And yet again, we have a second demonstration from theists of how evidence is quite unneccesary when it comes to making pro-religion assertions, but all evidence must be thoroughly demanded from all viewpoints to the contrary. You're missing the point. I think I'm quite clear on the fact that most interpretations of quantum theory are not being taught as facts since they're still unfalsifiable. The scientific community may develop various hypotheses in an attempt to explain phenomena and observations that are not yet understood, but peddling unsubstantiated claims as facts is the domain of religion instead. Which is exactly what I asked. Quantum cosmology isn't exactly my field, but to the best of my knowledge there hasn't been any serious attempt taken to falsify the principle. LuftWaffle, maybe you're not too clear on how the scientific community works. The scientific community works as a meritocracy and by results, not by blindly swallowing the opinions of one man, no matter how prestigious he may be. This isn't religion we're talking about. Certain scientists may favor certain positions while approaching their research, but until something has actually undergone the scrutiny of the scientific process, it is not science. LuftWaffle, have you actually read the article? It describes the preservation of Edicara biota, most of which are soft-bodied, which is extraordinary since in the vast majority of cases soft-bodied organisms don't usually fossilize well, or at all. The Edicara biota is used to describe the class of organisms which lived during the Ediacara period, which immediately precedes the Cambrian. I'll take your word for it that you're not feigning ignorance, but... meh. Well, I can't possibly answer that question until you actually produce an example of such an organism, can I?

Whatever those arguments may be, they apparently don't appear to be this moral argument, now that its first premise is resting on rather shaky grounds. I'm not sure you're quite clear on what "posit" means. The above are interpretations, not scientific facts. They have so far been unfalsifiable and are most definitely taught in science classes. Again, I'm not sure whether the Copernican principle is currently falsifiable, or even accepted by the scientific community at large as a fact. Do you have any information to offer regarding this matter? Does this help? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_type_preservation I'm also not sure what you're arguing. Are you trying to claim that no life existed before the Cambrian explosion? Find an organism that thrives despite a lack of survival means. An example would be an organism that is preyed on by everything else yet lacks the means to escape, hide or defend itself, has a slow reproduction rate, does not band together for survival in numbers, etc. Can you name one?

There's a problem with your terminology, in the sense that evolution is not a sentient process and hence cannot have a premeditated goal. Evolution is guided by various factors, and if those factors change then the outcome of the evolution process will also change. If you mean whether can predict evolutionary pathways, the answer is generally no except under special circumstances. If you mean whether we know what evolution tries to achieve, I believe the answer is yes, and that evolution is a process through which various species optimize themselves for survival accordingly to their environments. Have you shown that your objection is far-sighted and actually improves the fitness of the human species in the long run? What research have you carried out, using what methodologies? What data do you have to support your conclusions? The thing is, what can be postulated without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence, as is the case of your objections. Here we see the very interesting (and common!) phenomenon of theists who will make all sorts of fantastical claims without evidence in favor of their religion, but will scrutinize any and all opposing claims to the very minute detail. But that's just as well. If science claims to operate based on evidence and logic instead of the wild claims of religion, it needs - unlike religion - to be able to stand up to such scrutiny or retract its claims. We know intellectual capacity and self-awareness arose because earlier Homo progenitors lacked the physical brain capacity for higher-level brain functions. Evidence left behind in the form of art, equipment, rituals, social patterns etc that changed over time, as well as neurostudy of higher vs lower primates, all point to increasing self-awareness and intellectual capacity as the Homo family progressed in its evolutionary path. As for why "is" and "ought" is a man-made distinction, I would've thought that was fairly obvious. "Is" and "ought" themselves are man-made terms - animals certainly don't understand them! - and hence it follows that any distinction between them is man-made as well. It is wrong for the simple reason that it harms survival. Apathy and selfishness are "bad" attributes because they make social living detrimental for its members if those attributes ever come into widespread practice. Given how mankind is a species that has "chosen" superior numbers as its survival tool long ago against other stronger and faster predators and that social living is by now so engraved in the human psyche, attributes that can potentially cause the collapse of society are generally considered "bad". As for why we ought to behave the way we do, I've already explained it repeatedly. I'm afraid your constantly asking the same questions over and over will get us nowhere. Can you be a bit more specific on what you require clarification on? Have I ever claimed that we should emulate animal behavior? Despite your protests that you're not feigning ignorance, I can only wonder... Let me try again, at any rate. I did not claim that animals are "moral". Most if not all other species lack the intellectual capacity to understand morality. What I said was that actions that we humans would call moral are also practiced by various other species, despite the fact that those species haven't the slightest clue that they're being "moral" by human standards. The same actions are evolutionally programmed into the psyche of many other social animals, who lack the need or desire or ability to explain their actions to themselves. Mankind on the other hand does, and morality was created as a concept to serve that purpose. Without knowing under what conditions Skell used to draw his assumptions, it's both pointless and futile for me to argue against his claims, which I suspect is convenient for Skell. A conclusion derived without methodology and data is nothing more than a hypothesis. Another convenient aspect for Skell is how he launches his tirade against "Darwinian explanations", when evolutionary biology has long progressed past and fleshed out Darwin's initial theories. You're also right that if humans behaved utterly selfishly and cold, I'd do exactly what you're doing now. Except that I imagine the "neuro biology" I'd be plugging would need to be substantially different in order to account for the changes in the environment parameters and outcome. It's essentially what science is about, actually. Theories are created in order to account for known facts and observations, rather than fantastical contortions of logic being performed so as to twist the facts to fit the pre-determined theory.

Hi PGA, Unfortunately I do not see using Biblical claims to verify the Bible as being useful. I hope the reason for that is obvious. I am aware that the common theist rebuttal to that argument is that non-theists are in a similar boat by using logic in order to verify logic. The difference is that logic is based on premises and observations that can be directly verified to be true. If what we can observe and detect are all false, then there cannot possibly be meaning whatsoever to be found in any worldview - including the Christian one . The strange thing about objective Christian morals is that they're hardly objective at all. The castigation of homosexuals and pornography, for instance, is hardly universal, much less objective. Christians can claim to possess an objective set of morals; what they have been unable to do, however, is to prove it. In fact, the tenets of Christian moral law that are alleged to be objective actually precede Christianity and the Christian concept of God by far. It is the Christians (and, to be fair, quite a few other religions as well) who have taken the age-old Golden Rule and tossed in a bunch of extra, subjective morals around it, and are now attempting to sell the new package as The original set of objective moral laws. First off, if the accounts became more and more fictional as man drifted further apart from God, I admit I do not understand how can Christians then claim that the Bible is the absolute word of God. Secondly, the earliest accounts are, in fact, the accounts that we have the strongest scientific proof against. Do we have rock-hard scientific evidence that Jonah was not swallowed by a fish and lived in its belly for three days, for instance? No, we do not. These miraculous accounts are as absurd to the logical mind as much as they lack evidence, but on the flip side there's no hard evidence against them either, to the best of my knowledge. What we do have hard evidence against, on the other hand, are the earliest accounts of the Bible where God allegedly created the universe in a specific order in seven days, that all mankind was descended from one male-female pair, a global flood happened, et cetera. The accounts that we know are definitely fictional appear in the very first book of the Bible. If later accounts are more fictional compared to earlier accounts, then I'd say the entire Bible doesn't give us a lot to work on regarding the nature and existence of God. PGA, if mankind is gambling that our own minds are sufficiently rational and wise to be able to know the real truth, why is it that Christians are absolutely convinced that they are in possession of that said real truth? By what process or mechanism does the would-be Christian mind gain this extra wisdom and rationality that suddenly allows it to perceive this hypothetical real truth? With that said, I suspect your original intent when you said that the atheist "worships" the "god of self" was to employ dramatic wordplay. In the real world, there have been men who acted and talked as though they were gods on earth and had authority over everything else. They have either been exposed as quacks, or belong in a mental institution. I understand it is your intent to portray atheists as arrogant people who believe they are accountable to nobody and nothing, but as I see it, there's considerable arrogance right here from theists who claim to be in possession of the ultimate and absolute truth while everyone else is trapped in shallow ignorance, even if they have no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims. I apologize if I came across as mocking. I used the term "hypothetical God" not to mock, but as an expression that I do not personally believe in him yet am accepting his existence for the moment so that this discussion has some sort of common ground with which to proceed. I will drop the word in future. Actually, an argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy is made when a party in a discussion pleads that a premise has to be true, even if there is no evidence whatsoever that it is, simply because he is unable to understand or imagine any other possibility. Premise #1 of the moral argument as described in the OP is a classical example of this fallacy, as are a good number of other theist premises. Let me pose the question in another way. Have you ever found any real evidence that your God is the answer for all those ultimate philosophical questions, instead of simply resorting to arguments from ignorance as I described in the above paragraph? We didn't jump, so to speak. It was a long and lengthy process. To give a vastly simplified reply that only borders on being accurate: inorganic, non-living matter formed self-replicating chemicals due to conditions present on early Earth. Non-perfect replication allowed mutation to take place, where, combined with selection forces where beneficial mutations were favored over non-beneficial ones depending on the conditions, evolution occurred to advance non-living chemicals into early forms of genetic code and increasingly complex organisms. As a mechanism to promote survival, some species learned that banding together into groups was more effective than foraging alone, but their behavior had to be modified accordingly to some extent in order to make group living possible, which gave rise to the Golden Rule. As mankind evolved and developed increased intellect and higher brain functions like emotions, he began to question his own actions and distinguish "good" from "bad", giving rise to the concept of morality. I admit that I made the assumption that most pornography in my country is lawful. We have companies that are registered with the government and restricted by various federal laws, with porn stars that are mini-celebrities in their own right and are often given coverage by the relevant media. I therefore made the assumption that an industry that operates and distributes its products in broad daylight right under the nose of the government, and one that employs actors who often make public appearances, and has been doing so for decades, is a fairly legitimate one. Other than that, I live in a country with a legal system that practices the principle of innocent until proven guilty. If there is proof that the porn industry is involved in massive exploitation or other illegal activities, I would definitely love to see it so I can know which production companies to boycott. Same to you.

First of all, thank you to the posters who tried to communicate with me via PM, but as been stated by a moderator I do not have sufficient privileges to use the PM system. Well, I can't say for sure if you're feigning ignorance here, but I believe it was quite clear that my original argument was that "we follow the Golden Rule because it allows us to exist and function as a society." There may plenty of actions suggested by the woefully near-sighted that may yield some benefits in the short term, but will ultimately cause the collapse of society. That proposal will also eliminate a considerable number of people who are still economically and socially productive. Politicians and the private sector come to mind. You also fail to take into account that individuals are also geared with survival instincts, and any deliberate attempt to terminate the survival of an individual will be met with resistance and repercussions. This is why we needed the Golden Rule in the first place - in order to prioritize long-term survival via mutual benefit and cooperation over short-term selfish behavior. The distinction is mostly a man-made one. Humans are the only species who have evolved enough intellectual capacity and self-awareness to question and ponder what we do. In the early ages where science was lacking, the easy answer to that question was that we were created as an inherently superior species and endowed with morality by an omnipotent, omniscient being (who also happened to be the convenient explanation for everything else). With the progression of neurobiology, we can now trace morality back down its evolutionary roots and observe how other species exhibit "morality" as well, not just humans. Note that I encased morality in quotes. I was not attempting to provide a definition. I was merely pointing out that the a partial subset of behaviors typically known to humans as morality is hardly exclusive to humans, and has its roots in evolutionary biology. Animals are not moral in the strictest sense of the world because morality is a man-made concept that has evolved to include not only the foundation of the Golden Rule, but culture, higher emotions, and various other factors as well. But actions that would be considered "moral" if performed by humans are also performed by numerous other species as well, especially highly social ones. And the Jews would disagree with you on that. Having a root and being the root itself are two different things. For an analogy, birds evolved from dinosaurs, but birds are not dinosaurs. Christianity may have its roots in Judaism and advocate the Torah as part of its ideology, but that doesn't mean Adam was a Christian, just like it doesn't mean he was a Muslim either. How far away is it? The negative expression of the Golden Rule is arguably its earliest form, as the Golden Rule was originally meant to restrain selfish and destructive behavior to a degree so that social living became possible and beneficial. Given that God is a relatively new fad in the long timeline of evolotionary biology, while the Golden Rule has existed for extensive periods of time in pre-sapiens species and in regions of the world unknown to Judaism and Christianity, I would like to ask what forms the basis of your disagreement. I proposed the possibility, not stated it as a fact. The thing is, the vast majority of theological arguments are based on premises founded on arguments from ignorance, and the premises for this moral argument are no different; by pleading that there is no other possible source of objective morality other than from God, it establishes the conclusion that God must exist. Now, this premise cannot be falsified because it isn't based on evidence in the first place, but it can be called into question by showing that there is, in fact, another possible source of objective morals, and this source does not require a supernatural explanation. Naturally, theists are next going to try to take the credit for the Golden Rule and attribute it to God, but I hope that this might force theists to come up with new premises that actually have some sort of logic or evidence backing them up this time.

Sorry, I thought stargaze had said what Exaeus' said. So Exaeus, can you read that post and reply, as well as let me know if your a believer or not. as from all appearances you are not. I re-read your post, I saw how you stated "your god" so I figured that answered my question. I have therefore changed your status to that of "Nonbeliever" This restricts you to posting in the outer court, and does not allow you access to the board Private Messaging system. Did I violate a forum rule? I apologize if that is the case. As for your post, CS Lewis is right that there is an "objective" moral rule. It's the Golden Rule, and it arose from evolutionary biology due to our need to band together to form various tribes, societies and civilizations to increase our chances of survival.

Thank you, and I'll accept that welcome at face value. I'm not sure who you're including in your definition of "nobody", but the original poster I replied to was debating under the premise that the only alternative to an objective set of moral values was a set of entirely subjective, relativistic ones. I'm glad we agree that reality is somewhere in between. It proves that the criteria used to determine whether a celestial body is a planet or otherwise is hardly an objective matter. Likewise, Christians disagreeing with each other proves that the set of moral laws allegedly given by a hypothetical transcendent giver is not objective, at least not entirely. But since we're apparently in agreement on this point, I'll move on. The Golden Rule is grounded in neuroscience and evolutionary biology in order to reject destructive elements of a herd when species learned to band together in groups for increased survival chances, and food and mating opportunities. When combined with altruism under certain situations, it can potentially improve the fitness of the group or species as a whole at the expense of a few individuals. We follow the Golden Rule because it allows us to exist and function as a society. A number of other animal species do the same; "morality" is hardly restricted to the human species. Actually, Adam would technically be a follower of Judaism. The first Christian is the one who first followed Jesus Christ. God's revelation to Moses on Mt Sinai is generally dated to around 1400-1450 BC. On the other hand, the Golden Rule can be found in the Code of Hammurabi dated to ~1780 BC, and presumably in practice quite a while before Hammurabi formalized and inscribed them on stone. I beg to differ. Since an "objective" moral code had existed long before anyone heard from (or about) God or Jesus, I would propose that premise #1 is called into question.

Which was my point exactly. There is an established standard, according to you. The WBC apparently begs to differ by denouncing other churches for not taking a more determined stand against the taint of Satanic corruption and, in doing so, leading their congregations to the pits of hell. Even among yourselves, Christians cannot agree on what is good and what is not. So as long as it's under God's judgment, then indiscriminate slaughter of women and children are good and moral? Perhaps before Christians try to claim that their deity is the objective and absolute source of morals, it might be worth asking the question: is your God moral to begin with? Well, to be honest I'm not sure what makes you think you were successful in your attempted demonstration. Do your morals teach you that exploiting underage, poverty-stricken children for profit, and you enjoying the fruits of that exploitation is perfectly fine (presumably because your Bible doesn't outlaw it), but a legitimate trade plied by willing actors of legal age is not? I'm sorry, but I'll have to ask you to back up your claims with credible statistics. First off, how does pornography "exploit and dehumanize" young girls? Assuming they're operating for a legal company, they are compensated for their services like a worker in any other industry, and last I checked, I did not recall acting or having willing sexual intercourse counting as a dehumanization process. That word is usually reserved to describe processes undertaken by fascist/racist groups or governments against their victims, and in your haste to condemn pornography you have unfortunately stretched the truth a little bit too thin. The sex trade is the oldest in the world. Pornography itself has been around since the Victorian era, and has been readily accessible for decades at the very least. You're quite right that pornography is all about sex without consequences and responsibility, except that pornography is fictional, and the participants involved are paid actors. Unrealistic portrayals are what movies are about, and pornography is no different. Any person stupid enough to destroy their family over pornography is suffering from a severe inability to distinguish reality from fantasy, in which case pornography is hardly to blame for what he does to himself.

This is something known as the "No True Scotsman" tactic. It's a pretty well-known and well-documented logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman Your God also instructed Joshua, for example, to kill every last inhabitant of Jericho, including women and children. Do you think that is moral? I'm not sure if it's appropriate to derail the thread by discussing pornography instead. The fact is that there is far more legitimate pornography companies and actors observed by strict government permits and regulations than there are unlawful ones, assuming we're talking about a democratic and civilized nation. To provide you with an analogy, just because a rare few companies exploit child labor in Asian countries to produce their goods doesn't mean you give up wearing shoes and shirts entirely. That's just being silly. Whatever special version of the Golden Rule that Jesus allegedly invented and and you're trying to give him credit for, the Golden Rule was already practiced thousands of years before Jesus came along, in various regions like ancient Babylon and China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule Even if Jesus really did come up with his own special version, we've had a source of morality long before Christ all the same. Today the Golden Rule is studied and relatively well-understood in the fields of neuroscience and evolutionary biology. Religion and morality are universal. Christianity has only been around for ~2000 years, and Judaism ~7000. Mankind has existed and have been worshiping everything they could see long before that, from the sun to the trees, in attempts to come up with explanations for what they lacked the science, technology, and knowledge to understand. As I've already explained, morality being common among man does nothing to prove that morality came from God. If only Christians were moral, you'd be claiming that as proof for your baseless hypothesis as well. You cannot have a situation X prove something, and then claim that an opposite situation Y also proves the same thing. That's not how logical reasoning works.

Some examples I could scrounge up on short notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality How do you propose to attribute the Golden Rule to Jesus when the Golden Rule predates Jesus by several thousand years? Like things that do not cause detrimental consequences to other people or society, and hence do not trigger the Golden Rule. For example, maybe a 21-year-old young man wants to marry a 65-year-old woman. Maybe someone has a habit of licking his plates in restaurants. Maybe someone has a liking for sex dolls or pornography which he enjoys in the privacy of his own home. That's where subjectivity comes into play. Just because everyone has morality is very poor evidence indeed that it came from God. In fact, it's not even evidence at all. If the exact opposite were true and only Christians were moral, I'm sure you would rush to hold that up as well as proof that God is the source of morals. We have here a case of evidence being creatively interpreted to fit the pre-determined conclusion, rather than the conclusion being based on the evidence.

First of all, you've not quite addressed i can's argument. The fallacy of an entirely objective moral standard is destroyed by the fact that Christians, who claim to be the standard bearers of this objective set of morals, cannot even get together and agree on what that set actually is. Second, you're oversimplifying the problem into the classical logical fallacy of a false dilemma. Just because our morals do not come from a hypothetical supreme being doesn't mean that every aspect of it is relative and subjective. A large subset of morals that are generally agreed upon across the world can be termed as "objective" because they stem from a single source: the Golden Rule. It is the minor aspects of morality that are not covered by the Golden Rule which are subjective and relative. The law of the jungle, as you try to attribute as a result of relative morals, do not apply in the vast majority of cases due to the simple reason that it contradicts the Golden Rule. Morality has been known and practiced by non-primitive cultures centuries before Christianity even existed. It's not a problem of man rebelling against God when morals were not introduced by God. It's a problem of the church seeking to control man by trying to set itself up as THE authority of morals and castigating people into obeying them.