I Had A Thought About Miracles And I Want Some Comments

[Snakefoot]

ETA: Animals are not "intelligent" (oh, shit, here we go again), but their amazingly efficient instincts can appear as intelligence to anthropomorphic human observers. (Please do not respond with all the amazingly intelligent things you have seen your dog or cat do; it was not intelligence, reasoning, or "thinking" beyond the instinctive response or adaptation to stimuli. Read "the whale hunting tread" for answers.)

Sorry, but I have to disagree, and I will leave it at that.

Thank you!

[mwc]

Bonobo chimps and dolphin are the only animals other than man known to have sex for pleasure and not strictly procreation.

How does the dolphin even get to the chimp? Is there a YouTube video of this?

 

mwc

[Snakefoot]

Bonobo chimps and dolphin are the only animals other than man known to have sex for pleasure and not strictly procreation.

How does the dolphin even get to the chimp? Is there a YouTube video of this?

 

mwc

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

yeah I do believe that morals are objective. I believe that these objections are not monotheistically specific. If I could sumerize it in a sentence or to. Do the least amount of harm, and allviete as much suffering as you can. And this is something that we are born with. it objective in the sense that it is something that culturally mandible, but you can't eliminate. Like I said, for example, murder is a crime in every culture in some form.

Thank you. I agree I think anyone who really searches their heart will realize that there are acts which are never morally acceptable no matter how many people say it is okay. Rape is always immoral even if every person in the wold said it was not.

 

How can we be born with something such as morals, though? Animals don't rape, murder or steal. They just act out of behavior. Why would humans be the only species with these moral values? I believe these moral values are imputed to us as part of God's image. You have to be careful not to confuse how we got our moral apprehension with where the legitimacy of these morals comes from. IOW, I believe we acquired these values through evolution, but that what makes them truly valid is there objective existence.

 

If God does not truly exist then I can not see where these objective moral values could reside. If they just exist in our minds then they are subjective as many on here claim. I can not get my self to accept that there are not truly things that are immoral. I would hold that the Holocaust was wrong even if everyone in the world said it was right.

Remember that video I recommended to you. It actually shows how we developed morals. I believe that there are objective moral codes, but they don't need a deity. I noticed a typo, in my previous post I meant to say monotheistically objective (not objections), sorry.

Well in readers digest form, the video is a evolutionary pyschologist talking about how we wouldn't have survived with realizing that morality as we call it is necessary to survival. These rules that ultimately became part of instinct, because it was necessary for survival. Made us ask moral questions, and ask if are choices are right and wrong. Here is the reason I say that there are objective but monotheistically specific. Essentially the idea is cause the least amount of harm, or no harm whenever possible. It is basically a biological golden rule.

 

And on a another point, chimp's and other primates show lower level, not so complex forms of moral codes.

 

Thinking about this today I came up with a term that will define to describe my views on morality.

It is called selective objective morality.

The root of all ethics is objective.

But due to different needs of different cultures, they developed there system as needed but it also like everything, that base objective morality is adapted to suit its needs.

 

A those needs change, so for example killing may be excepted in one era in one form but later on as we develop it not excepted.

 

For example ritual sacrifice in one era is alright but in our it isn't. The objective moral code is still there but it is adapted.

 

Now if a deity gave us objective morals. Then there would be no change.

 

If you haven't you should really watch the video and in case you didn't here

 

[mwc]

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

There are more animals that has been observed to do autoeroticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Autoeroticism_.28masturbation.29

 

500 species have been identified to have homosexual behavior.

[Snakefoot]

There are more animals that has been observed to do autoeroticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Autoeroticism_.28masturbation.29

 

500 species have been identified to have homosexual behavior.

They are so going to hell.

[Ouroboros]

There are more animals that has been observed to do autoeroticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Autoeroticism_.28masturbation.29

 

500 species have been identified to have homosexual behavior.

They are so going to hell.

Especially the doves. (The symbol of the Holy Spirit)

 

If I remember right, there are documented cases of necrophilia in the case of doves.

[OrdinaryClay]

The only requirement with respect to the syllogism is that moral values exist objectively with respect to our minds. If you claim objective moral values do exist if God does not exist(counter to the premise), then in order to invalidate the premise you need to posit a repository of these objective moral values outside God.

 

Objective is objective, you cannot play fast and loose with the definition to suit your own arguments. either morals are Objective to ALL minds or they are NOT objective. To posit that morals are foisted upon us by god is nothing but a "might makes right" argument.

 

By the way I most certainly do NOT need to posit another repository to prove your argument wrong in the logical sense. Do you not understand how logic works? You do not get to be right by simply claiming that no alternative argument exists, even if you were correct in that assessment each argument is judged on in OWN merits. The only thing I need to do to prove your argument is wrong is exactly what I did, which is to show that one of your premises is either wrong or contains a fallacy. In this case it contains a fallacy, because "objective" is definitionaly incompatible with your premise.

 

What I have shown is that moving the control of ethics from us to god just moves the relativity further away from us, but is still ultimately relative.

 

Your claim is logically equivalent to claiming that square circles exists because god said so.

I said nothing about logical validity. I said invalidate the premise. The augment is logically valid, i.e. it is a valid syllogism. The question we are debating is whether the premises are true. You stated premise 1) was false because morals were subjective to God(because He has a mind), you are just asserting the second horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma(morality is arbitrarily commanded by God), of which the resolution is the same. God is good. It would only be relative if God were arbitrary. He is not.

 

Now you object to claiming God is Good because you think it is equivalent to saying God can violate the law of non-contradiction. This does not follow. Stating a property of God does not violate any contradiction. You may disagree God is good, but my saying so is not a contradiction. If your disagreement is simply in whether God is good or not then you have not dis-proven the argument or the premise. You have just disagreed with a premise. Simple disagreement is nothing more then disagreement. It is not a logical defeater.

 

The goal of the Euthyphro Dilemma is to place the theist in a true logical dilemma, i.e. forced logically to accept something about God they may do not like. This is not the case because as long as the possibility of a third choice exists there is no dilemma. From a logical standpoint it does not matter whether we agree on which choice is true, as long as a third choice exists there is not dilemma.

 

 

You seem to be saying you believe morals are relative? I find this hard to believe to be honest. What Hitler did was morally wrong whether everyone in the world thought it was right. There are acts that are morally wrong even if all of humanity thought they were right.

 

Bifurcation fallacy. There is more than two possibilities in a discussion of ethics. This is a typical bullshit apologist maneuver, you act as if the only two possibilities is that either god created morality OR morality is simply left to the whim of the individual.

No, I'm suggesting morality stems from what God is, not that He created morality. You seemed to be very preoccupied with the Euthyphro Dilemma. I would suggest you read some of the detailed responses to this dilemma even if you disagree with them.

 

 

Your example is a silly one, because morality, while a complex system, is basically a by product of two things, our desire to survive, and our drive to work together as social animals. Further, morals are generally not relative to the whim of the individual, but relative to much larger entities like the society.

You are commiting the genetic fallacy. My claim of the objectivity of moral valus can not be defeated by simply describing how you think we apprehended these values. This is commiting the Genetic_fallacy

 

 

It would be extremely unlikely for all humans to decide that what Hitler was doing was because it would be counter intuitive to those ends. Moreover, taking those to be the ends or morality/ethics we can objectively say he was wrong because his actions no longer meet the end goals of morality.

I don't understand how this is relevant. By admitting it was unlikely you are admitting it is possible. In any case where it is possible we would have a world where everyone thought He was moral, and I claim that even in this case His actions are heinously immoral.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

Ritual sacrifice would be another example. Aztecs, Mayans, Sumerians and many cultures throughout history (some of which are mentioned in the Bible) allowed killing for ritual purposes which, of course, is immoral to another culture.

 

 

In fact I was able to tour some of the Mayan ruins in Honduras and heard from our guide how the Mayan men played this game which involved tallying points with a ball at the opponents' end of the field, and the high scorer would be the sacrifice - the men played their hardest to be that sacrifice because it was an honor. We were shown the pedestal that the man's heart would be cut out on, with troughs for the blood to run down. Not seen as murder, not seen as immoral. Morality is subjective.

Personally I don't understand how anyone could think ritual human sacrifice could be moral even if raised in the society from birth. Our ability to empathize exists in all of us across cultures. Even the romans felt a sense of wrong being perpetrated by Nero while he engaged in his persecutions of Christians.

 

" ... Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.(3)"

-- Tacitus (The Annals)

[OrdinaryClay]

 

Well, Jesus H. Christ, of course they do. Animals are very clever and will steal from humans and each other even though they "know" it's wrong. Chimps kill each other at times, other animals fight to the death, and they aure do kill other species.

 

I vividly remember watching the series Trials of Life where a band of chimpanzees stalked another breed of monkey, caught it, and literally tore it limb from limb. Chimps were/are thought to be vegetarian, certainly don't need to kill other monkeys for food - this was a 'thrill kill,' pure and simple.

Chimps are omnivores.

[OrdinaryClay]

Thank you. I agree I think anyone who really searches their heart will realize that there are acts which are never morally acceptable no matter how many people say it is okay. Rape is always immoral even if every person in the wold said it was not.

 

Bifurcation fallacy....again. I do not need an objective source for morality to claim that certain acts are never morally acceptable to me.

I'm not sure you understand. I'm not claiming objective morality needs to exist in order for us to have a stable moral platform. I'm claiming that objective moral values exist because deep down we all know that certain a morality exists independent of how many people may claim something is not immoral.

 

How can we be born with something such as morals, though? Animals don't rape, murder or steal. They just act out of behavior. Why would humans be the only species with these moral values?

 

Except animals DO exhibit moral behavior, particularly animals which are highly social like us.

Animals exhibit functional behavior. I agree our behavior including moral behaviors can serve a purpose. Demonstrating that animals have a certain behavior is not the same as demonstrating these animals attach moral significance to that behavior.

 

 

If God does not truly exist then I can not see where these objective moral values could reside.

 

Now see here sir, I have already ripped this argument to shreds and back again. IF objective morals exist they most emphatically CANNOT exist within ANY mind, including the mind of god.

No, you just rewrapped the Euthyphro Dilemma.

 

 

If they just exist in our minds then they are subjective as many on here claim.

How can you realize the subjective nature of ideas which exist in our minds and not realize the subjective nature of ideas which reside in gods mind?

Good does not exist simply because God thinks something good. God is good. Again, refer to the Euthyphro Dilemma.

 

 

I can not get my self to accept that there are not truly things that are immoral. I would hold that the Holocaust was wrong even if everyone in the world said it was right.

So would I, and yet I still believe ethics are subjective.

Then you are thinking self contradictory thoughts. Either what Hitler did was objectively wrong or it was not. I believe it was objectively wrong in any possible world.

[OrdinaryClay]

Yes, it does attack the source of morality. The dilemma claims morality is either independent of God(God is not needed) or an arbitrary whim of God's. These two choices are called the horns of the dilemma. The dilemma is broken by offering a third choice, which is that morality is part of God's nature. Gos is good. God is love. If God is good then it is not arbitrary or independent. Hence the dilemma is broken.

 

If you think that response even comes close to dealing with the issue you are not as smart as I thought you were.

 

Just assessing god as good by fiat does not deal with the basic problem of who is defining good. On this issue is where the dilemma gets is strength.

 

If god defines good, then calling god good is circular, if someone else defines good then right and wrong are outside his purview, saying "God IS good" is just rhetoric and is of no consequence to this argument at all.

 

You cannot prove god is good by saying "god is good" you might as well join the tautology club while you are at it.

To break the dilemma one does not need to prove God is good any more then you need to prove God exists to claim the dilemma exists. The dilemma relies on no third possibility being logically possible. The third possibility is logically possible and therefore the dilemma is broken.

[Legion]

Demonstrating that animals have a certain behavior is not the same as demonstrating these animals attach moral significance to that behavior.

Hmm... Perhaps so, perhaps so. But how could it be demonstrated that they do attach moral significance to certain behaviors? Would we have to show that they can feel guilt or shame or righteous pride?

[Skankboy]

Yes, it does attack the source of morality. The dilemma claims morality is either independent of God(God is not needed) or an arbitrary whim of God's. These two choices are called the horns of the dilemma. The dilemma is broken by offering a third choice, which is that morality is part of God's nature. Gos is good. God is love. If God is good then it is not arbitrary or independent. Hence the dilemma is broken.

It would seem to me that the dilemma can also be broken through naturistic means as well: We are social animals. A combination of instinct and societial pressure would seem to be enough impetus for a moral code to develop independant of an objective external source. Indeed, this would also account for the wide variation in moral codes we see in history as each society's moral code as evolved to fit the specific needs of the society.

 

This is neither arbitrary nor independent(as it's based on an inherent system modified by a feedback loop).

 

To me, this theory best fits the evidence.

 

I can not get my self to accept that there are not truly things that are immoral. I would hold that the Holocaust was wrong even if everyone in the world said it was right.

I don't doubt that you might. But what you fail to recognize is that in a society where this was considered to be a "moral" thing, you would be the one considered to have an "immoral" opinion about it.

 

Animals don't rape, murder or steal.

 

Yes they do. You're just arguing semantics again. Non-consensual sex is non-consenual sex. Killing another is killing another. Taking from another is taking from another. Why does my definition seem less conditional than yours?

[Shyone]

 

 

Ritual sacrifice would be another example. Aztecs, Mayans, Sumerians and many cultures throughout history (some of which are mentioned in the Bible) allowed killing for ritual purposes which, of course, is immoral to another culture.

 

 

In fact I was able to tour some of the Mayan ruins in Honduras and heard from our guide how the Mayan men played this game which involved tallying points with a ball at the opponents' end of the field, and the high scorer would be the sacrifice - the men played their hardest to be that sacrifice because it was an honor. We were shown the pedestal that the man's heart would be cut out on, with troughs for the blood to run down. Not seen as murder, not seen as immoral. Morality is subjective.

Personally I don't understand how anyone could think ritual human sacrifice could be moral even if raised in the society from birth.

 

<snip>

 

But it was the highest moral value. Clearly, they did not have the same values as you do, and your inability to empathize with them is the reason that you can't see that there values are simply different from your own.

 

I would agree with you that it is horrible. I'm an atheist (albeit raised in a western culture as you were). They (Aztecs and Mayans) believed in gods.

 

Go figure.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

Ritual sacrifice would be another example. Aztecs, Mayans, Sumerians and many cultures throughout history (some of which are mentioned in the Bible) allowed killing for ritual purposes which, of course, is immoral to another culture.

 

 

In fact I was able to tour some of the Mayan ruins in Honduras and heard from our guide how the Mayan men played this game which involved tallying points with a ball at the opponents' end of the field, and the high scorer would be the sacrifice - the men played their hardest to be that sacrifice because it was an honor. We were shown the pedestal that the man's heart would be cut out on, with troughs for the blood to run down. Not seen as murder, not seen as immoral. Morality is subjective.

Personally I don't understand how anyone could think ritual human sacrifice could be moral even if raised in the society from birth.

 

<snip>

 

But it was the highest moral value. Clearly, they did not have the same values as you do, and your inability to empathize with them is the reason that you can't see that there values are simply different from your own.

 

I would agree with you that it is horrible. I'm an atheist (albeit raised in a western culture as you were). They (Aztecs and Mayans) believed in gods.

 

Go figure.

All humans have the same ability to empathize and sympathize. We have to suppress these feelings in order to rationalize something we all know as immoral into something that is just "cultural". The phenomenon of dehumanizing other human groups is well know.

[Shyone]

All humans have the same ability to empathize and sympathize. We have to suppress these feelings in order to rationalize something we all know as immoral into something that is just "cultural". The phenomenon of dehumanizing other human groups is well know.

Dehumanizing. Like wiping out people because they worship some other god, or they are culturally inferior... Is that what you mean?

 

Empathy and dehumanization are opposites.

 

At any rate, you didn't really address whether the morals of the ancient American cultures were different. They viewed sacrifice as a duty, a responsibility, an honor. Would you say that this is reflective of an objective morality (however you wish to define that)?

[bdp]

 

All humans have the same ability to empathize and sympathize.

 

Not sociopaths - did god make sociopaths?

[Skankboy]

All humans have the same ability to empathize and sympathize. We have to suppress these feelings in order to rationalize something we all know as immoral into something that is just "cultural". The phenomenon of dehumanizing other human groups is well know.

We all have the same ability. How these attributes are expressed are filtered through what a society deems as normal. Morals are defined by the society and then the individual. Morals are the behavior needed to work within a group. The group defines which morals work for them.

 

Like I said before, it's possible you may have held your views if you lived in ancient Maya, but I'm pretty sure most people there would have considered you immoral at best (and a danger to society at worst).

[hereticzero]

I have been thinking about the supernatural and miracles lately since OC's post on the nature of evidence

 

And I had a thought

 

Would any natural explanation no matter how absurd be more likely then a guy rising(the resurrection of jesus)??

 

I am talking about alien abduction absurd.

 

Thoughts??

 

Another thing

 

What if we can't say for sure what happened on that easter sunday. Would a miracle then be a good explaination

If we do not know what happened during the Revolutionary War or the Civil War, is that a sign of a miracle that the winners won? Or WWII when the US was all but beaten and they managed to destroy the Nazi military with the help of the rest of the world, of course? The lack of an explanation for a 'miraculous event', does not point to divine intervention but the accumulation of work that went on behind the scene in such efforts, such as war. You never hear of everyone that participated or the bravery that was involved by everyone, only those who caught the public attention receive the glory and when the story is narrowed it down to on or two people, the results appear miraculous until one steps back and looks at the whole picture of unfolding events. As for Easter Sunday, the original Easter, why is an open and empty tomb a miracle? Why is it too hard to believe that the events never happened? Or why is it impossible to believe the body was moved either by the Romans or the disciples? If the tomb was under guard and the guards were not executed for dereliction of duty, then that tells me their superiors were involved in the disappearance of the body. I completely doubt the event even happened. Yes people got crucified but no, they never came back.

[Skankboy]

Would any natural explanation no matter how absurd be more likely then a guy rising(the resurrection of jesus)??

Sure - it didn't happen the way the it's recorded in the Bible. See, easy-peasy...

[NotBlinded]

 

ETA: Animals are not "intelligent" (oh, shit, here we go again), but their amazingly efficient instincts can appear as intelligence to anthropomorphic human observers. (Please do not respond with all the amazingly intelligent things you have seen your dog or cat do; it was not intelligence, reasoning, or "thinking" beyond the instinctive response or adaptation to stimuli. Read "the whale hunting tread" for answers.)

 

None of this is to imply that human intelligence is anything more than a unique form of evolution in our species.

You forgot to put this in your post: IMO

 

[NotBlinded]

ETA: Animals are not "intelligent" (oh, shit, here we go again), but their amazingly efficient instincts can appear as intelligence to anthropomorphic human observers. (Please do not respond with all the amazingly intelligent things you have seen your dog or cat do; it was not intelligence, reasoning, or "thinking" beyond the instinctive response or adaptation to stimuli. Read "the whale hunting tread" for answers.)

Sorry, but I have to disagree, and I will leave it at that.

Yeah, me too.

[NotBlinded]

Bonobo chimps and dolphin are the only animals other than man known to have sex for pleasure and not strictly procreation.

How does the dolphin even get to the chimp? Is there a YouTube video of this?

 

mwc