Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madman500)
    These moral standards, are a sign that we are special, as they put us in a different category from every other living thing. Every society that has ever lived has had morals. Give me your opinion on this? Hypothetically, the year is 400BC. Seven pair of people, travel to the different continents of our issolated planet, and each starts their own society. We examine the results 500 years later? In every society produced will murder & stealing be considered wrong, despite no contact with the other societies?
    First of all, I completely agree with you that we have innate moral standards that are not transferred to people through culture or government.

    However, logic would point out that this has nothing to do with god. Human races seperated a relatively short time ago, not long enough to have evolved completely different cognitive maps. Logic would pertain that moral standards improved the evoluntionary fitness of the common ancester of human races.

    Lets not forget that animals have a primitive form of morals as well. As a predator approaches a prey group of animals, the first indivudal who spots the predator will give out an alarm call, drawing attention to itself in the process. This is the 'morally' correct thing to do for the animal, rather than just securing its own escape and leaving the other animals vulnerable to attack.

    The only reason that we have such complex and intricate moral standards is because of the vast abilities of our cognitive psychology.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madman500)
    I was not saying that we have perfect knowledge - I was saying that God does
    Then what did you mean when you said "Perfect knowledge +god not limited by time = Perfect knowledge +Free will for us"?
    I am trying to get a point across and your ability to twist my words, and throw your little dimensional box, existent only in your head, into the problem, is quite outstanding.
    What are you trying to say here?


    CAN AN ALL-POWERFUL GOD BE LIMITED BY A DIMENSION (I.E. TIME)? No clearly not as he is all-powerful
    DOES THIS MAKE HIM OUTSIDE TIME?
    no he is all-powerful, by definition he can transcend its boundaries
    If god can "transcend its boundaries", then it must exist outside time. As I said, such a being as you hypothesise would create the whole universe in every dimension including time as a complete and single entity.
    There is another interesting question about an all-powerful god: would it need to do anything? After all, such a being need only think of anything and it exists as a complete entirety, so why should it bother? On the other hand, perhaps such a being is limited in one way: the very fact that it can create anything, means that it creates everything. Because god can create every possible universe, perhaps it does- must, even- create every possible universe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Then what did you mean when you said "Perfect knowledge +god not limited by time = Perfect knowledge +Free will for us"?
    What are you trying to say here?
    "= perfect knowledge" refers to God knowing what we will do in the future, in addition to us having free will. That is my argument

    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    If god can "transcend its boundaries", then it must exist outside time. As I said, such a being as you hypothesise would create the whole universe in every dimension including time as a complete and single entity.
    Why would he create it as a complete and single identity? What does this achieve in your argument? It either limits him or it doesn't? If you limit him your argument doesn't hold up as he is all-powerful. If you do not - then my original theory is logically valid.

    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    On the other hand, perhaps such a being is limited in one way: the very fact that it can create anything, means that it creates everything. Because god can create every possible universe, perhaps it does- must, even- create every possible universe.
    so really if you rephrase your sentence then eveything is created by an all-powerful god? yes that is what i believe? what is the interesting point of it? its just a average sentence phrased in a different way
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madman500)
    These moral standards, are a sign that we are special, as they put us in a different category from every other living thing. Every society that has ever lived has had morals. Give me your opinion on this? Hypothetically, the year is 400BC. Seven pair of people, travel to the different continents of our issolated planet, and each starts their own society. We examine the results 500 years later? In every society produced will murder & stealing be considered wrong, despite no contact with the other societies?

    Number one your illustration is flawed as pain is not just pain - pain is a sign that 'something bad' is happening to you. That muddles your argument when you try to illustrate that if the toggle switch on 'something bad' is changed to something good, but by definition it remains as 'somethin bad' - it will still be 'something bad'.
    Hmm, where shall I start with this...

    Moral standards show nothing particularly special. Just a particular form of something already existing in nature happens in humans and inevitably takes a slightly different form to what is seen elsewhere. This isn't necessarily a sign of something special; it merely highlights we have a different genetic composition and evolutionary history. It's like saying octopuses have 8 limbs - that makes them special. You'd be right, only in stating the obvious. To say however, that octopuses being special infers they have a soul and their decisions are independent of universal causal laws is to say the least a little far fetched.

    That murdering and stealing are inevitably considered wrong in hypothetical societies, is nothing more than another way of saying pain is inevitably painful. As pain is intrinsically rejected, the mind invariably invents constructs which it associates with pain and other unwanted influences. These are deemed as 'bad', merely as a consequence of evolutionary history. Similarly, if you put a bunch of cats on 3 different deserts and didn't let them talk between islands , they'd all probably end up huddled in the nearest cool crevace. Nothing particularly special there.

    Your discussion that pain is necessarily bad shows you missed what I think dividebyzero was trying to say. Truth is absolute by definition. Thus, something being bad has nothing to do with whether it causes you harm or whether you think it's bad. It (in a world created by some facetious god) is decided only by that 'god', that defines everything. Good and bad is not the ideal topic for considering something like this as the details are a little convoluted.

    That humans are special, and that humans can surpass the causal constraints on which the universe is (apparently) founded are two very distinct ideas that cannot simply be inferred from one another. The former is stating the obvious; the latter to say the least a little presumptuous.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madman500)
    "= perfect knowledge" refers to God knowing what we will do in the future, in addition to us having free will. That is my argument
    Then you shouldn't put it on both sides of the "equation".



    Why would he create it as a complete and single identity? What does this achieve in your argument? It either limits him or it doesn't?
    Because god is not bounded by time or any dimension, it has complete knowledge of all dimensions. You are supposing that time is different from every other dimension to god. Not being trammelled by time, god creates time, like the spacial and other dimensions, as an entirety.
    If you limit him your argument doesn't hold up as he is all-powerful. If you do not - then my original theory is logically valid.
    I do not impose the limit that you do: that time is different to other dimensons in god's perception.



    so really if you rephrase your sentence then eveything is created by an all-powerful god? yes that is what i believe? what is the interesting point of it? its just a average sentence phrased in a different way
    Take another look. I suggest that an all-powerful being either need not create anything- why bother, when it knows the result already?- or that such a being must create absolutely everything that can be created- what difference does one creation out of an enormous number of potential creations make?- and that every one of them is no more important than all of the others.
    What precisely is an "average sentence"? Would you give examples of above and below average sentences?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Take another look. I suggest that an all-powerful being either need not create anything- why bother, when it knows the result already?- or that such a being must create absolutely everything that can be created- what difference does one creation out of an enormous number of potential creations make?- and that every one of them is no more important than all of the others.
    Why should he create such a world....For the very reason this argument began. He has given us free-will to do whatever we want - that is what is all important.

    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    I do not impose the limit that you do: that time is different to other dimensons in god's perception.
    I have not mentioned any other dimensions - but obviously an all-powerful being is not is not bound by them either.

    MY ARGUMENT:
    As God is not bound by the realm of time - he knows what we do because effectively we have already performed the action, as he is not bound by time. Therefore, although he knows what we are going to do - we still have free will.

    YOUR ARGUMENT:
    Seems to be that the created all the dimensions as one, and therefore he cannot see the future?

    However there is two options:
    1) MY ARGUMENT
    2) GOD IS (REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU PHRASE IT) LIMITED BY TIME, IN THAT HE IS EITHER BOUND BY THE REALM OF TIME, OR OUTSIDE TIME? How can this be logically plausable considering he is an all powerful being


    rIcHrD & Benm:

    Initially i am a total opponent of macro-evolution. For a brief summary why, research some of these topics:

    Neanderthal Man
    Java Man
    Piltdown Man *
    Nebraska Man
    Peking Man
    Nutcracker Man
    'Lucy'

    * Piltdown Man - "the sensational missing link" in the evolutionary chain - discovered by Charles Dawson in 1912 - an entire generation of biologists grew up with piltdown man in their textbooks. In 1953 genetic tests revealed the whole thing was a gigantic hoax. It was in actual fact a human skull, with 50 year old monkeys jaw-bone attached, whose teeth had been filed to give it a more human look. All of the above, are similar amazing discoveries that undoubtedly confirm evolution - each has since been exposed.

    Still no transitional species found yet? Maybe they'l turn up in a few million years - i doubt it somehow

    Fisrtly - the animal warning others is a survival instinct - alike a mother protecting her child, that too is irrational.However, it is separate from a moral code.

    Even if I were to argue within your context of evolution - Stealing undoubtedly benefits those who do it, it is a perfectly rational thing to do. Why should an evolved moral code have ingrained that in all of us stealing is wrong. Surely in a world where one person steals, and one is unwilling to - survival of the fittest will produce a generation were stealing is exceptable to anyone. A moral code is divine.

    Dividebzero:

    Still gettin my head round your philosophy but surely you should also refuse to believe in:

    depression
    happiness
    love
    friendship
    perhaps even that things have a smell? Are your sure its not your evolved insticts lying to you?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madman500)
    Even if I were to argue within your context of evolution - Stealing undoubtedly benefits those who do it, it is a perfectly rational thing to do. Why should an evolved moral code have ingrained that in all of us stealing is wrong. Surely in a world where one person steals, and one is unwilling to - survival of the fittest will produce a generation were stealing is exceptable to anyone. A moral code is divine.
    Naa, that wouldn't be true unless it were possible to steal without leaving any evidence of the theft or being caught. The two issues i've just stated function to limit the evolutionary advantage of thieving.

    A thief when caught is labelled and punished. This has many negative consequences for them, one of which is they are less preferred as a mate, and may even be prevented/restricted from mating by the nature of their punishment. Leaving evidence of theft, means people will notice they have been robbed and all the negative emotions associated with that serve to reinforce that theft is 'wrong'. A moral code is functional, not divine.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Do Chickens Fly)
    Naa, that wouldn't be true unless it were possible to steal without leaving any evidence of the theft or being caught. The two issues i've just stated function to limit the evolutionary advantage of thieving.

    A thief when caught is labelled and punished. This has many negative consequences for them, one of which is they are less preferred as a mate, and may even be prevented/restricted from mating by the nature of their punishment. Leaving evidence of theft, means people will notice they have been robbed and all the negative emotions associated with that serve to reinforce that theft is 'wrong'. A moral code is functional, not divine.
    Sorry you've totally missed what i'm sayin. Why should it matter if the person gets caught or not???? Why should they endure these negative consequences??..........the answer because stealing is wrong - why should it be wrong, if our moral code is evolved? Surely logic would tell you it is rational & therefore, unless there is some divine intervention, it should be correct in our eyes???

    If our moral code is evolved, why would stealing, a totally rational option, be considered wrong. Surely those who refused to steal, if a problem of scarcity occurred would die out and their genes not be passed on.

    Morals are divine - not evolved
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madman500)
    Sorry you've totally missed what i'm sayin. Why should it matter if the person gets caught or not???? Why should they endure these negative consequences??..........the answer because stealing is wrong - why should it be wrong, if our moral code is evolved? Surely logic would tell you it is rational & therefore, unless there is some divine intervention, it should be correct in our eyes???

    If our moral code is evolved, why would stealing, a totally rational option, be considered wrong. Surely those who refused to steal, if a problem of scarcity occurred would die out and their genes not be passed on.

    Morals are divine - not evolved
    Interesting way of looking at things.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madman500)
    MY ARGUMENT:
    As God is not bound by the realm of time - he knows what we do because effectively we have already performed the action, as he is not bound by time. Therefore, although he knows what we are going to do - we still have free will.

    YOUR ARGUMENT:
    Seems to be that the created all the dimensions as one, and therefore he cannot see the future?
    Eh? It would be very useful if you read what I wrote, not what you wish or think i wrote. I say that the god you hypothesise creates every dimension, including time, as one. Such a being creates the whole of time- past present and future- and every act in time at once and as one. The whole of time, including our acts, before we do them, is completely solid and immobile. Obviously such a being knows the future, as it creates it. The future is only a perception of the dimension of time which is solid as we move through it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Eh? It would be very useful if you read what I wrote, not what you wish or think i wrote. I say that the god you hypothesise creates every dimension, including time, as one. Such a being creates the whole of time- past present and future- and every act in time at once and as one. The whole of time, including our acts, before we do them, is completely solid and immobile. Obviously such a being knows the future, as it creates it. The future is only a perception of the dimension of time which is solid as we move through it.
    Very sorry i meant change the future not see the future when i was referring to what you believe earlier..

    I do see your point and it is valid - however, i dissagree with the fact that the future has already been planned - it has been created but not planned. we have free will and our choices & actions determine what this future is. To use an analogy i envisage creating time, as creating a plannet with its own atmousphere - and then sitting back to observe what happens within that plannet.

    Are you a believer in the 'knowledge of future therefore predestination therefore free-will is an illusion' argument? Or do you have another view on things? Perhaps the latter as you strike me as an athiest?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madman500)
    Very sorry i meant change the future not see the future when i was referring to what you believe earlier..

    I do see your point and it is valid - however, i dissagree with the fact that the future has already been planned - it has been created but not planned. we have free will and our choices & actions determine what this future is. To use an analogy i envisage creating time, as creating a plannet with its own atmousphere - and then sitting back to observe what happens within that plannet.

    Are you a believer in the 'knowledge of future therefore predestination therefore free-will is an illusion' argument? Or do you have another view on things? Perhaps the latter as you strike me as an athiest?
    Dewd.... let's look at it with some clarity. If you make rules by which things abide (the atmosphere of ur planet is just a collection of molecules interacting in predictable ways), the future IS a result of NOTHING BUT the past. If you don't make rules, you have chaos, or an element of it. Chaos is NOT free will. Therefore, unless you go to extraordinary lengths, free will is nothing BUT an illusion.

    We can't know the future with certainty because of our limitations. Thus, the future can be predeterminable, but still beyond our scope to predict.

    It is quite a simple idea. Only way to complicate it is to have a different understanding of the definition of free will, in which case the argument laid above remains true, just irrelevant.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madman500)
    Very sorry i meant change the future not see the future when i was referring to what you believe earlier.
    I think that from the view of an omnipotent being the "future" or the "past" don't exist as such: they are merely our perception of our existence in time, which is solid and unchangeable. It is made as a single "one-off" object, and is as unchangeable as a bubble, for the same reasons. After all, an omnipotent thing might just as easily make another universe- or several million universes- as change this one.
    I do see your point and it is valid - however, i dissagree with the fact that the future has already been planned - it has been created but not planned. we have free will and our choices & actions determine what this future is. To use an analogy i envisage creating time, as creating a plannet with its own atmousphere - and then sitting back to observe what happens within that plannet.
    Again, i go further, I think that it isn't planned, not as we may plan a journey, but made as one single phenomenon. To an omnipotent god a universe is a timeless "moment's" production.

    Are you a believer in the 'knowledge of future therefore predestination therefore free-will is an illusion' argument? Or do you have another view on things? Perhaps the latter as you strike me as an athiest?
    Agnostic, technically, but I enjoy it as a thought-experiment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I think you should put the dictionary away now.
    Im sorry just because you didnt understand...i found the paragraph perfectly comprehendible (btw howard, that means understandable....oh my god thats a long word too)
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.