Science vs God - a debate...a conversation

I wave my hand randomly for no reason whatsoever.

"A more significant question arises from your premise. Why is that evil men with the power to destroy all life on earth, for some inexplicable reason, have failed to do so since the birth of the bomb?"

Because those scientists were theorizing, they predicted, quite incorrectly, that a nuclear detonation would cause a chain reaction, which would destroy the protective layer of ozone around our planet. The predictions proved incorrect.
 
deaddude said:
I wave my hand randomly for no reason whatsoever.

"A more significant question arises from your premise. Why is that evil men with the power to destroy all life on earth, for some inexplicable reason, have failed to do so since the birth of the bomb?"

Because those scientists were theorizing, they predicted, quite incorrectly, that a nuclear detonation would cause a chain reaction, which would destroy the protective layer of ozone around our planet. The predictions proved incorrect.

Deaddude yes everyone knows that some scientists predictions proved incorrect about the entire world being consumed in a continuing chain reaction with nothing to stop its progress.

But your response does not answer any of the questions posed in your original propositions.

Examples: waving your hand was not originally posited for no particular reason. You said waving your hand in the air did not form a basis for good or evil. That light and darkness were somehow physical properties referencing good and evil. And finally the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being evil from which good was derived.

Do you continue agreeing with your original proposition that waving your hand in the air has no consequences for good or evil?
 
"All things rude and nasty,
All creatures short and squat,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made the lot" - "<i>Monty Python: Python Sings!</i>"

I always get a laugh from hearing that song on the album.
 
deaddude said:
Moral relativism is flawed, as is moral stagnation.

Evil is not the absence of good. I wave my hand into the air, no good comes from this but when my hand stops moving no harm has come from it either. This action was devoid of any good, yet it was devoid of evil. It was neutral.

To use the analogy of darkness and light, Darkness is not the absence of light; it is the absence of visible light. The ultraviolet and infrared might be shining brightly, but we are merely incapable of seeing them. To retranslate this back into good and evil, we see the actions of a person; we see the most obvious form of good and evil, the visible spectrum of good if you will. To see into the other spectrums of morality we require specific knowledge of the circumstances, much as we require special equipment to view the other spectrums of light. These spectrums operate both in total darkness and in blinding light.

The spectrum of visible light goes from Violet to Red; in the analogy let us refer to the Violet as the ultimate good, and Red as ultimate evil. Green would then be neutral since it is in the exact center of the Spectrum. Now Ultraviolet would be the invisible good acting through a person and infrared would be the invisible evil. These invisible spectra cover such things as motives, and intensions. Since Violet is the furthest away is far from infrared it would be hard for an act as good as violet would be difficult too taint with evil intentions and motives.

In simpler terms is an evil act with very good motives and intensions still evil, and vice versa

Moral relativism is necessary because the circumstances do affect moral
outlook. Killing someone in cold blood is punishable by death but killing some one in self defense is not punishable at all.


Actually, moral relativism is the death of civilization. You want to dismiss morality due to incomplete knowledge of circumstance. Before judgement, the circumstances should be fleshed out and illuminated, then the moral system applied. You have just rediscovered the principles of a jury trial. good job.
 
deaddude said:
How does moral relativism kill civilization?

Before the current fixed concepts of morality and ethics, good and evil came into being each individual or group sought their personal limits or lack of same depending on what was best for themselves.

Civilization survived before that point in time but humanity was constantly in a state of flux with groups and tribes finding their own moral relativism by constant wars and death instead of peaceful coexistence which is seen in some societies today. Even today, ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to each person's individual choices i.e., that somehow my morally relative religious stance should be the only one used above all others because, of course, I have the truth.

Many people take fixed moral and ethical codes laid down by religion, government Constitutions and courts of justice which they simply twist and pull to their own relative positions in their morality and ethical choices.
 
ajwps said:
Before the current fixed concepts of morality and ethics, good and evil came into being each individual or group sought their personal limits or lack of same depending on what was best for themselves.

Civilization survived before that point in time but humanity was constantly in a state of flux with groups and tribes finding their own moral relativism by constant wars and death instead of peaceful coexistence which is seen in some societies today. Even today, ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to each person's individual choices i.e., that somehow my morally relative religious stance should be the only one used above all others because, of course, I have the truth.

Many people take fixed moral and ethical codes laid down by religion, government Constitutions and courts of justice which they simply twist and pull to their own relative positions in their morality and ethical choices.

So therefore moral relativity exists today, most obviously in today’s politicians and lawyers, yet we call ourselves civilized, so moral relativity and civilization can coexist.
 
deaddude said:
So therefore moral relativity exists today, most obviously in today’s politicians and lawyers, yet we call ourselves civilized, so moral relativity and civilization can coexist.

I didn't ascribe moral relativism to our own civilization and coexisting with it. What western civilization has is a set of moral and ethical values and rules that we are raised to follow. Many in our society do not subscribe to our system of justice and values while many make up their own based on what they find expidient or contorted based on different religious dogma.

So moral relativism and morality do exist together in our society but not always well.
 
ajwps said:
I didn't ascribe moral relativism to our own civilization and coexisting with it. What western civilization has is a set of moral and ethical values and rules that we are raised to follow. Many in our society do not subscribe to our system of justice and values while many make up their own based on what they find expidient or contorted based on different religious dogma.

So moral relativism and morality do exist together in our society but not always well.

Nor always poorly, so I still fail to see how moral relativity is the "death of civilization" as it was dicribed by Rtwng Avngr.
 
deaddude said:
Nor always poorly, so I still fail to see how moral relativity is the "death of civilization" as it was dicribed by Rtwng Avngr.

For RWA to prognosticate about the death of civilization for any reason or system is nothing more or less than pure chance.

Civilzation existed for a very long time when civilization had only moral relativism and yet civilization survived. Fortune telling has more chance of being correct than RWA has of prophecizing of the death of civilzation.
 
ajwps said:
For RWA to prognosticate about the death of civilization for any reason or system is nothing more or less than pure chance.

Civilzation existed for a very long time when civilization had only moral relativism and yet civilization survived. Fortune telling has more chance of being correct than RWA has of prophecizing of the death of civilzation.

yay verily (i.e Amen)

I was just questioning him on the subject for amusment. Then you came in and debated the point logicaly to an equaly entertaning, but much more intellectualy stimulating result.
 
gop_jeff said:
I've seen it before, but not on here.

I will say, though, that more and more scientists are accepting Intellegent Design as a plausible theory for the origin of the universe, i.e. the "First Cause" which caused the Big Bang.

I will say though, as a so called scientist, prove it- (that more and more..blabla). What do you mean by that statement? You lot obviously have not the faintest idea as to what science is about.
 
Thats why it is called a theory, grant it I agree with you that the theory is improbable, but it isnt impossible. Just like its not impossible that as I type this blue aliens all named bob are going to beam away my big toe. It isnt likely to happen but we have no evidence that says it couldn't.
 
8236 said:
I will say though, as a so called scientist, prove it- (that more and more..blabla). What do you mean by that statement? You lot obviously have not the faintest idea as to what science is about.

Prove what? Intelligent design? Or that scientists are flocking to the idea? You can go to this page for several links to intelligent design scientific associations; that should prove the second point. Maybe reading around a little will begin to convince you of the first point.
 

Forum List

Back
Top