Well like I said, I don't prefer to use the word moral. A human sharing food is good and beneficial to the other human being. It could be good for the human being who's being generous too. It could help build a bond and companionship between the two and it can promote piece. Or the other human...
I rather just drop the word "moral" all together. I'm fine with the words good and bad though. It's more technical. It's a good thing for the crocodile to kill a human for food.... good for the crocodile that is. It's not good for the human. It's bad when a volcano destroys a neighboring...
It just seems kind of egocentric to call other animals stupid just because they don't [entirely] understand us when we speak to them.
Dogs can communicate with each other better than we can to them. So from their perspective, we may seem stupid.
A dog growling at you or wagging it's tail isn't telling you something? It's a form of communication.
Also, did you know that dolphins have a rather complex language? Maybe they can't understand our language and we can profess that they're stupid, but they could also say the same about us.
My guess would be that the creator isn't omnipotent or omniscient.
I already went over this. We can conceptualize perfection without it existing physically. I don't see why we couldn't do the same for imperfection if it didn't exist.
Let's not deviate from my main point. My main point is...
Well you seem all over the place with your posts then. It was asked in this thread why there were imperfections in nature if we're to assume there's a creator. You replied basically saying that perfection would be boring, implying that a creator made bad designs so we wouldn't be bored.
You...
Even if all this were true, pointing out that one thing has to exist for it's "opposite" to exist is a red herring. None of it does anything for the claim of there being a creator. That aside, I can think of a large list of things that don't have opposites, but that would lead to an irrelevant...
But isn't that what all-knowing is? If a being is all-knowing, then it means there's literally nothing they don't know. They would know how to make a flawless organism, and they could easily design our brains of being incapable of boredom.
That's just your opinion in the end. Since no one has truly experience ultimate perfection of anything, no one can really make the claim that it would be "boring". I could just as well make some baseless claim that a perfect mind is incapable of being bored.
Second, there's a difference between...
I haven't read most of the posts from the last two pages, but would you guys say it's fair to define consciousness as subjective experience?
I saw robots mentioned. So for example, a robot with AI, camera eyes, sound detection -- basically any electronic version of the human senses -- would it...
Bingo.
I mean an unrelated clade of life could possibly get a foot hold, but it'd be an uphill battle. I'm giving you a reason why it's probably never happened.
There's other reasons why life may not have started twice. For one, the early Earth is nothing like it is today. So maybe today...