That was too easy.
The question is if subjectivity cannot be made objective. If all our experiences are ultimately reduceable to physics and information theory, I don't see why not.
Even reducing them all to these that only leaves us with what is not what should be. No natural law or entity can tell us what we should do. Gravity can only say I will fall if I jump off the cliff. It can't say I shouldn't do so. For that we have to invent goals like maximizing human health. In most cases these would be universal and innocuous but in other they would have the greatest consequences and the least obvious conclusions imaginable.
I am sorry but this is mainly due to your lack of knowledge on the subject.
It woukd be like saying that it is a miracle that email exists given that the fax got extinct and deduce that there cannot be evolution of communication systems. You really have to defeat your boredom if you want to discuss these things seriously.
That is actually based on a quote by an atheist evolutionary scientist but requires a judgment call so I would bother defending it. Regardless evolution is balanced on a knife edge in many ways. If you want to see how non-intuitive evolution is just listen to an atheist like Dawkins discuss it. Despite being famous for denying them he will use words like design and intent constantly because the evidence argues so strongly for it. However these points were not critical, ignore them if you want to.
Mass extinctions are a point for evolution, not a point against.
I thought evolution was about survival. That is the thing about it I can't stand the most. Everything no matter how contradictory is said to be evidence for it. I think you probably have in mind life surviving an asteroid or something but that is not what I mean. I am talking about one species wiping out another. No matter what you had in mind evolution is going to lose the race in the end. All life will be over come.
It selects genes, not individuals. That is why you have less problems to kill an ant than a dog, presumably.
Your talking about genetics, I am talking about the end result. Genes would be on one side of an equality and survival of the strongest or fittest on the other side. Your talking mechanism not result.
Well, no. A 200 millions years old fossil of a cow would destroy evolution.
I would bet any amount of money I had that it would not, but I agree with you that it should. The theory evolves more than what it describes. But I am trying to steer this away from a biological debate. They are just to boring.
I am not sure what your point is. That the world is a dangerous place speaks for evolution, not against it. This is why sharks did not evolve a lot in the last millions of years. They have basically no predator.
How is the absence of a predator a success? Evolution just is, it does not try and meet goals. And by the way killer whales, other sharks, and man (the greatest predator in natural history) all hunt sharks. If the survival of something was the goal ten evolution is a good basis for patterning things, if human morality is the goal it is not.
Well, I don't know whether you have kids. As a man you can't ever be sure, lol. They don't give a rip about root canals.
Perhaps I am a Jesuit and have lived on top of a twenty foot pole since I was 13 years old. Their not caring about root canals brings up a point (I cannot remember what the original point was), morality can be like tooth care. You do not care about it until you find out those stories about it were true and you would give anything to go back and change your world view but it is to late in many cases.
Yes, and that is exactly what happened. He has been invented.
The thing I appreciate about good humor is if I can not predict it coming. That is why I like Monty Python, no one can see what they do coming. However this reply I saw coming when I made my claim but figured you were too sophisticated to take the easy pot shot. I never learn.
Assuming does not entail existence of the assumption. Especilly when we assume different versions of morality.
That is my point. Without God there is no ultimate truth to our assumptions, with God there is. You can place as many biological, genetic, evolutionary, and whatever ideas even objective ones on one side of the equality but the other side will always be opinion and preference.
It is not in ll cases. Otherwise we would forbid abortion. I don't see any right in a bunch of human cells on some Petri dishes. But I see the right of people who might profit from research in that field. You call it life, I call it personhood. They do not necessarily cohincide.
What we do and what we should do are not the same thing. What we do is grant that human life has sanctity, as Chesterton said we just disagree on when that sanctity can be cancelled.
Therefore stomping kindergarteners is a malum prohibitum, while stomping roses is a malum in se. Did I get that right?
Nope, exactly backwards. Actually this is more complex. If God exists and grants property rights both would be in se if he does not both would be prohibitum.
Why not? If naturalism is true, it could very well be. If a meterorite wipes us out, do you think that it wlll change its natural trajectory at the last moment because of the (self declared) sacredness of human life?
Indirectly it could. If life has inherent sacredness then God exists. If God exists he will not let an asteroid wipe us out at least according to my understanding of his word. I went back and read your claim and I have come to understand I don't understand what your saying.
Do we? And who is going to guarantee me that this source exists and is reliable? Some other fallible humans?
That is an epistemological question to an ontological claim. Since we all disagree we obviously are in need of an objective fact of the matter. How we come to know what it is, is important but not relevant to my claim.
I m not a theist anymore.
Who did you believe in Thor, Oden, or Getty Lee?
Facts are facts. It is our job to make the best out of it. Or turn to real nihilism. Outside this planet, nobody cares, really.
No one exists outside the planet to care as far as well can tell.
For a moment I thought that things that explain everything, do not explain anything.
That is the third time I didn't get it. With the one exception above maybe your sense of humor is so superior to even Monty Python that not only can I not see it before it gets here, I can't even get it when it is here.
