something of a different kind

[Huntsvil]

Something to ponder....

 

Science works by experiments, this is a true statement. It watches how things behave.

I am saying that this is what its job is. And a very useful and necessary job it is too.

But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes-something of a different kind-this is not a scientific question.

Suppose science ever became complete! It knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, "Why is there a universe?" "Why does it go on as it does?" "Has it any meaning?" would remain just as they were?

It begins to look as if we shall have to admit there is more than one kind of reality. That in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts.

These then are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way.

For example; Suppose you have a man who does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find that same man going back on this statement a moment later. He may break a promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "Its not fair". Has he not in fact admitted there really is a "law of nature" or "moral law" at work here?

I am not bashing anyone and maybe I have posted this in the wrong place...but I just seek truth. Does anyone else?

[Clergicide]

But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes-something of a different kind-this is not a scientific question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, it's a philisophical question.

 

 

Suppose science ever became complete! It knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, "Why is there a universe?" "Why does it go on as it does?" "Has it any meaning?" would remain just as they were?

 

If everything in the whole universe were know those questions would be answered, otherwise everything in the universe would not be known.

 

 

It begins to look as if we shall have to admit there is more than one kind of reality. That in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts.

Why should this be admitted? You're assuming that these things can't be explained, and never will be. Just because we don't have a definite scientific answer to these questions now, though we have some startlingly impressive theories, that by default that neccesitates the existance of God? Wrong, I'm afraid.

 

 

These then are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way.

 

 

 

 

  For example; Suppose you have a man who does not believe in a real Right and Wrong,

 

A sociopath?

 

you will find that same man going back on this statement a moment later

 

First of all, a true sociopath that doesn't know right from wrong, he may lie and say he does, but without drugs or psychotherapy that's all it would be.

 

He may break a promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "Its not fair". Has he not in fact admitted there really is a "law of nature" or "moral law" at work here?

 

What if he didn't say that? What if he said "that's fair" and meant it? Your argument would fall apart, wouldn't it?

[Asimov]

Something to ponder....

 

Not sure what your point is....

[spamandham]

"Why is there a universe?" "Why does it go on as it does?" "Has it any meaning?" would remain just as they were?

 

These questions presume a metaphysical purpose for the universe. If the universe simply exists purposeless, then these are not valid questions to ask.

[Caretaker]

Those questions, except for maybe the "how" questions are really not of the concern of scientists. They are simply social constructs.

 

Maybe science could answer "Why am I here?" but chances are you are not going to like the answer. It will answer the part of how you came to the physical state that you are today, but it is not concerned with some divine plan.

[Ouroboros]

Something to ponder....

 

Sure. When all is said and done, anyone can still make up fabulous fantasies about the things we still don't understand. It only means that we haven't finished the science. If science would be pansophical, there wouldn't be anything unknown. The question is if it's even possible to know everything? Personally I don't think science ever will stop searching and finding new things.

 

When they've have established a unified field theory, there will be other and deeper questions to answer. For instance, what is energy and quark made off? It will never end.

 

To answer the question "why", is the purpose of religion. The strange part is that we have alternative religions to answer this, and people are just as happy to believe one thing as compared to another. Guessing what is beyond, and what the intent and purpose is, is just assumptions and emotional arguments, and can, because of this nature, never be set in stone to be A or B. You have your opinion, and someone else have their opinion. Some people live happy without a religion. So who can judge that not only everyone has to believe, but also what to believe? Are you or anyone else in direct contact with the alleged "Creator", so you can claim first hand knowledge of the things we can't have knowledge about?

 

If you're right that there's is more than one kind of reality, and what gives that your particular version of reality is more valid than anyone else's?

 

When it comes to that people tend to have this curious idea that there is a God, is contradicted by that there are large number of people that are atheists. I even have met people that don't claim to be atheists, but never in their life cared if there was a God or not, or ever even spent a second thought of the reason to life. You're paint with a broad brush, based on you own feelings, and want to label and argue from you as the center point of reference. That's an invalid argument, since there are people that don't feel the need of a God. We wouldn't have this debate if you were right.

 

If you're talking about morals, and right and wrong, you're mixing the concepts and ideas, but I'll go for it anyway. If everyone in the whole world feels that there is a right and wrong, how come there exist sociopaths and psychopaths that don't? There are people that are un-empathetic, and can't understand right and wrong, and do "bad" things to other people, knowing that people say it is wrong, but they can't understand why. If it was burnt into every mans heart, they wouldn't wonder why. They don't even see things as fair or unfair, because they don't understand the concept. They can't even understand that other people are human beings like themselves. They don't have the "spiritual" or "soul" connection, or the understanding of other peoples identity.

 

Why is it that you take a majority vote on morals? You and 99% of society feels a certain way, and that proves to you that God put that feeling there? That doesn't explain why God didn't put it in the 1% that doesn't have it.

 

  I am not bashing anyone and maybe I have posted this in the wrong place...but I just seek truth. Does anyone else?

I think it's in the right place. No worries.

[Amethyst]

Suppose science ever became complete! It knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, "Why is there a universe?" "Why does it go on as it does?" "Has it any meaning?" would remain just as they were?

 

You have science mixed up with philosophy. Science will never be able to answer these kinds of questions. Science can prove that there is a universe, but not ask why.

 

It begins to look as if we shall have to admit there is more than one kind of reality.

 

Actually, there are some scientists who believe that alternate realities exist, but they haven't been able to prove it.

 

These then are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way.

 

Morality is subjective to culture. Other posts have been written about that. I really don't want to repeat what has already been said. Please do yourself a favor and read through some of the older threads on this topic.

 

I am not bashing anyone and maybe I have posted this in the wrong place...but I just seek truth. Does anyone else?

 

I sought the truth, and I have found it. Christianity is a cult. Sometimes, the truth is not what we want it to be. Fairies, elves, and other myths don't exist. Neither does the Biblegod.

[Huntsvil]

These questions presume a metaphysical purpose for the universe.  If the universe simply exists purposeless, then these are not valid questions to ask.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Unless you believe everything is by chance, these are valid questions I ask. If you are of the materialistic view, then you are right. You believe that matter and space just exist, and always has existed, nobody knows why; and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a sort of fluke, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think. By one chance in a thousand something hit our sun and made it produce planets; and by another thousandth chance the chemicals necessary for life, and the right temperature, occurred on one of these planets, and so some of the matter on this earth came alive; and then , by a very long series of chances, the living creatures developed into things like us.

But some have another view which may be called the religious view. According to it, what is behind the universeis more like a mind than it is like anything else we know. Where ever there has been thinking men (and women) both views turn up.

[Huntsvil]

[

I sought the truth, and I have found it. Christianity is a cult. Sometimes, the truth is not what we want it to be. Fairies, elves, and other myths don't exist. Neither does the Biblegod.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are jumping ahead of where I am at in this discussion. I have only mentioned religion, or as some say phylosophy.

If I may clarify, the position of the question then, is like this. We want to know if the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. The problem is, if there is a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe- no more than an architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase in that house. The only way it could be expected to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a comand trying to get us to behave in a certain way.

Please donot think I am going faster than I really am. I am not yet within a hundred miles of the god of christian theology. All I have got to is a Something which is directing the universe, and which appears in me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong. I think we have to assume it is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know- because after all the only other thing we know is matter and you can hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions. (sorry materialists, this is not about you)

Thank you for your thoughts. They are helping me clarify a position I am trying to figure out here. Sincerly, thanks.

[Huntsvil]

Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way.

A sociopath?

First of all, a true sociopath that doesn't know right from wrong, he may lie and say he does, but without drugs or psychotherapy that's all it would be.

What if he didn't say that? What if he said "that's fair" and meant it? Your argument would fall apart, wouldn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But could it be you assume that they do not know right from wrong. The nearest we can get to this is cruelty. But in real life people are cruel for one of two reasons. Either they are sadists, that is, they have a sexual perversion which makes cruelty a cauae of sensual pleasure to them, or else for the sake of something they are going to get out of it-money, power or safety. The badness consists in pursuing them by the wrong method, or in the wrong way, or too much. I do not mean people who do this are not desperately wicked. I do mean that wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of some good in the wrong way.

[Ouroboros]

Huntsvil,

 

Read about sociopath: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath

Central to understanding psychopaths is that they do not appear to experience true human emotions, or at least, they do not appear to experience a full range of human emotions. This can explain the lack of empathy for the suffering of others, since they cannot experience emotion associated with either empathy or suffering. Risk-seeking behavior and substance abuse may be attempts to fill the emotional void. The rage exhibited by psychopaths and the anxiety associated with certain types of ASPD may represent the limit of emotion experienced, or they may be physiological responses without analogy to emotion experienced by others.

...

lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

...

incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment;

...

Lack of remorse or guilt

Callous/Lack of empathy

Shallow affect

Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

...

And so on.

 

The only reason a sociopath would argue fairness, is when they want to fulfill their own selfish needs.

 

Fairness to them is when they get, and you don't. And if they don't get, it's your fault.

 

How can this be any sort of "embedded moral law" from God?

[spamandham]

If you are of the materialistic view, then you are right.

...

 

  But some have another view which may be called the religious view.

 

You can observe the material. There is good reason to have that view. Even those with a religious view also have a material view. The real question is not "why are we here", but why do people have views that are unverifiable by any means?

[Huntsvil]

Huntsvil,

 

Read about sociopath: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath

 

And so on.

 

The only reason a sociopath would argue fairness, is when they want to fulfill their own selfish needs.

 

Fairness to them is when they get, and you don't. And if they don't get, it's your fault.

 

How can this be any sort of "embedded moral law" from God?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your quote has one problem. It is based on appearances, " it would appear", and since we do not really know what is in their mind we can not make a definitive statement that we know what is in their mind. Thus the authur left himself a way out if proven wrong. However, again, we are not really dealing with an observable thing, but what we can only know thru our own experiences as a real man. Science is based on observable facts of matter or material things. I am beyond that now and contemplating the unobservable. Or, another way we might put it, things of the heart.

[Asimov]

....

[Ouroboros]

Your quote has one problem. It is based on appearances, " it would appear", and since we do not really know what is in their mind we can not make a definitive statement that we know what is in their mind. Thus the authur left himself a way out if proven wrong. However, again, we are not really dealing with an observable thing, but what we can only know thru our own experiences as a real man. Science is based on observable facts of matter or material things. I am beyond that now and contemplating the unobservable. Or, another way we might put it, things of the heart.

Which would come right back at ya', since you don't know what is in other people besides your observations. Any claim then that a "built in moral code" would exist, is false, and invalidated by your own claim above! You can't claim the thing to be true, while you admit you can't know!

 

Or is it that you say that you know what people think, but other people don't. A psychiatrist or psychologist can't understand what goes one in a persons mind, but you think you do? Interesting. The same appeal to superiority I've seen before from Christians. "I'm better than you and everyone else, so listen my me!"

 

Of course you know better than thousands of professionals and scientists, and years of studies and experiments. But that's because the Holy Spook talks to you, right?

[Huntsvil]

Which would come right back at ya', since you don't know what is in other people besides your observations. Any claim then that a "built in moral code" would exist, is false, and invalidated by your own claim above! You can't claim the thing to be true, while you admit you can't know!

 

Or is it that you say that you know what people think, but other people don't. A psychiatrist or psychologist can't understand what goes one in a persons mind, but you think you do? Interesting. The same appeal to superiority I've seen before from Christians. "I'm better than you and everyone else, so listen my me!"

 

Of course you know better than thousands of professionals and scientists, and years of studies and experiments. But that's because the Holy Spook talks to you, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh! My bad. Did I imply that I knew what other people where thinking?

 

That was not my intention. This is just my questioning of your thoughts because I cannot know what others think unless they tell me....and if they are honest. Dang! There goes that moral law thing again. Can't seem to get away from it .

[Ouroboros]

Oh! My bad. Did I imply that I knew what other people where thinking?

 

  That was not my intention. This is just my questioning of your thoughts because I cannot know what others think unless they tell me....and if they are honest. Dang! There goes that moral law thing again. Can't seem to get away from it .

 

No one said the questions about right and wrong and morals was an easy one.

 

That's why is so deceiving to simplify the question by stating absolutes and confine it into a preset thougth system, i.e. a religious memeplex.

[Cerise]

All I have got to is a Something which is directing the universe, and which appears in me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong. I think we have to assume it is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know- because after all the only other thing we know is matter and you can hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions. (sorry materialists, this is not about you)

 

You really don't need a Something directing the universe to have moral laws. You might be able to make an argument to that effect if humans were not social creatures in need of complex relationship-building to survive, but it turns out that we are. The laws of reciprocity are in full-effect, making it essential to set up standards of right and wrong, whether or not there is something more than the material out there.

[Ouroboros]

Another thought, why did God only need one day to create 7x10^22 stars with planets, and billions of black holes. A universe of immense size. (How many particles 10^80?)

 

So one day for 10^80 particles for a size of ... I don't remember, have to look it up...

 

But then a one whole frigging day to create... the animals... or the plants... or the humans...

 

It seems like God got tired of the stress, he spent a one single day creating 99.99999999999....999% of the universe. Then he spent one day to create 0.0000000000000000.....1% of the universe, and then another day for yet another 0.00000....1% and again. And so on, until Sunday when he needed to rest. Huh? Rest?

 

Not only could he create the incredible big universe is minimal time, but needed extremely much time for the smallest parts, and then he's tired.

 

Come one Christians! You have to admit, it just doesn't make sense!

 

With the ability to create so many stars in one day, God could have created all animals and plants etc in one pico second.

[scitsofreaky]

Come one Christians! You have to admit, it just doesn't make sense!

You realize what you just said, don't you?

[Ouroboros]

You realize what you just said, don't you?

That it doesn't make sense, and I challenge the Christians to admit that it doesn't?

[scitsofreaky]

That it doesn't make sense, and I challenge the Christians to admit that it doesn't?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Asking a christian to admit something doesn't make sense. Yeah, that is going to happen.

[Kuroikaze]

Something to ponder....

 

  Science works by experiments, this is a true statement. It watches how things behave.

I am saying that this is what its job is. And a very useful and necessary job it is too.

But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes-something of a different kind-this is not a scientific question.

  Suppose science ever became complete! It knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, "Why is there a universe?" "Why does it go on as it does?" "Has it any meaning?" would remain just as they were?

  It begins to look as if we shall have to admit there is more than one kind of reality. That in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts.

  These then are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way.

  For example; Suppose you have a man who does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find that same man going back on this statement a moment later. He may break a promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "Its not fair". Has he not in fact admitted there really is a "law of nature" or "moral law" at work here?

  I am not bashing anyone and maybe I have posted this in the wrong place...but I just seek truth. Does anyone else?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

This is almost an exact quote from Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Please say something original and don't plagerize, at least tell people when you quote things

[spamandham]

  These then are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way.

 

I suppose pointing out that there are survival and reproductive benefits for social animals to have instinctive behaviors that favor social life is a bit too mundane?

 

Yep, too mundane. Goddidit.

 

I suppose pointing out that other social animals also exhibit these types of behaviors would also be too mundane?

 

Yep. That's the work of satan to trick us.

[MQTA]

Just about right (except for the sun getting hit)... and this happened billions of times throughout the universe. The numbers are astounding. In this galaxy alone there are 100 billion stars.... and there are billions of galaxies    (hint: chances are we aren't alone)

 

Until someone can prove that this universe came about 6000 years ago, I'll stick with the primordial soup explanation. Ultimately, the definition of right or wrong are time tested rules that allow a species like us to succeed on this planet and establish relatively civilized societies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If an egg gets bombarded with millions of sperm, the numbers are astounding. What's the odds that one of them will hit the egg and create a life. It's also a more direct chance of that happening, since there's one egg and it's targetted by millions of sperm.

 

But if a life-bearing planet explodes and sprays off in a billion directions, those projectiles may hit Mars, or Jupiter or Venus and nothing would happen, as we presume to know. But what would happen if it hit a planet like Earth? Maybe find a new home?

 

The planet was just an egg and got hit with a whole lotta DNA in projectiles over millions of years.

 

 

I think the problem is that people have been taught from an effect/cause method and never challenge their teachings. My above scenario has no 'proof', but I think it's just as viable as any other.

 

When a child asks "why do we have so many different languages", we can't go back to find out if/when we ever had one same language, but there's a neat little Tower of Babel story we can tell them, to shut them up, and answer their question.

 

When a child asks "why do we wear clothing", we have a neat little Garden story to tell them.

 

Perhaps our existance is like a person... for the last 6000 years we were growing and are just finally in 6th grade this last decade or two. Still have a lot to learn, but it's time to put the fantasy answers behind us.