If some people truly believe the universe is about 6000 years old...

Nobody knows how old the earth is. It could be 4000 or 40000000000000000, for all we know.

Nobody knows how old the earth is. It could be 4000.... racer8dan

Nobody knows how old the earth is. It could be 4000 or 40000000000000000, for all we know.

racer8dan

The science community is actually pretty set in stone in it being a certain age.. of like 4.5 billion years old.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]Nobody knows how old the earth is. It could be 4000.... Omni-Slash

Really? How do you know that?racer8dan

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="racer8dan"]Nobody knows how old the earth is. It could be 4000.... racer8dan

:| Believing in god is not about proof, but is a matter of personal faith.. I'm a agnostic that borderlines on atheist mindset and even I know that.

sSubZerOo

Believing in anything outside of your own mind and perceptions is an act of faith (and there are philosophical systems that even doubt those). Everything has presuppositions, conceits, or whatever you want to call them. The modern scientific method has certain conceits, obvious ones. That's fine with me; I have "faith" in science. I accept these conceits, but people like to pretend they don't exist.

Really? How do you know that?

racer8dan

Really? How do you know that?

racer8dan

How do I know how old the Earth is? At the simplest level: Testimony. That is, someone told me how old it was, and I believed them. I'm not a geologist.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]Really? How do you know that?

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]Really? How do you know that?

racer8dan

Its not absolute fact that you even exist, or any of you here.. You may all be a figment of my imagination.. You can see how pointless this kind of thought process is when it comes to any debate.. For all I know I never existed yesterday and I could have been created today and everything before was just memories implanted into my brain.. I can never know.

It's probable, but not absolute fact. Anything is possible regarding the origin of the universe, seeing as how it's outside of our minds comprehesion.

racer8dan

It's probable, but not absolute fact. Anything is possible regarding the origin of the universe, seeing as how it's outside of our minds comprehesion.

racer8dan

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
Because we have a very detailed system that shows, beyond any doubt, that it is far older than most people ever thought it could be. Showing how it works requires far more space and time than this website is capable of providing and I am capable of tackling, and honestly, far more understanding of the subject than I have of it. This article could provide some answers.

sSubZerOo

Its not absolute fact that you even exist, or any of you here.. You may all be a figment of my imagination.. You can see how pointless this kind of thought process is when it comes to any debate.. For all I know I never existed yesterday and I could have been created today and everything before was just memories implanted into my brain.. I can never know.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]It's probable, but not absolute fact. Anything is possible regarding the origin of the universe, seeing as how it's outside of our minds comprehesion.

racer8dan

Its not absolute fact that you even exist, or any of you here.. You may all be a figment of my imagination.. You can see how pointless this kind of thought process is when it comes to any debate.. For all I know I never existed yesterday and I could have been created today and everything before was just memories implanted into my brain.. I can never know.

We don't discuss those.. So when we mean absolute fact.. Its the closest we will ever get to understanding.. Your playing with semantics now.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

It's probable, but not absolute fact. Anything is possible regarding the origin of the universe, seeing as how it's outside of our minds comprehesion.

Omni-Slash

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Its not absolute fact that you even exist, or any of you here.. You may all be a figment of my imagination.. You can see how pointless this kind of thought process is when it comes to any debate.. For all I know I never existed yesterday and I could have been created today and everything before was just memories implanted into my brain.. I can never know.

sSubZerOo

We don't discuss those.. So when we mean absolute fact.. Its the closest we will ever get to understanding.. Your playing with semantics now.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]It's probable, but not absolute fact. Anything is possible regarding the origin of the universe, seeing as how it's outside of our minds comprehesion.

racer8dan

Its not absolute fact that you even exist, or any of you here.. You may all be a figment of my imagination.. You can see how pointless this kind of thought process is when it comes to any debate.. For all I know I never existed yesterday and I could have been created today and everything before was just memories implanted into my brain.. I can never know.

WTH are you even talking about:?racer8dan

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]Exactly the point.

racer8dan

We don't discuss those.. So when we mean absolute fact.. Its the closest we will ever get to understanding.. Your playing with semantics now.

[QUOTE="frostybanana"]

Pixel-Pirate's post went like this: You and I disagree on morality, therefore morality is specific to every individual.The question, by its nature, assumes it's own outcome. It's circular reasoning, and obviously so. It completely ignores the possibility that one person can be right and one person can be wrong, which is what I wanted to illustrate with the math analogy.

Here's some more circular reasoning:

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

Palantas, your cute little argument of comparing morality, behavioural conduct defined by each society, to mathematics and astronomy, fields which are objective and fixed, is not exactly a winner.

Palantas

"It's not correct to compare subjective morality to objective things, because morality is subjective." Oh, well that settles everything.

Now, I've been adopting Raynirod's terms here, because I don't care to go into definitions of terms like "subjective" and "objective." Depending on who gets involved, these may need to get fixed.

EDIT: Example of terminology issues...

Math doesn't change over time, it's a measurable, tangible thing.

frostybanana

Mathematics is the opposite of a tangible thing: It is entirely intangible.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"] WTH are you even talking about:?Omni-Slash

WTH are you even talking about:? racer8dan

[QUOTE="racer8dan"] WTH are you even talking about:?Omni-Slash

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

We don't discuss those.. So when we mean absolute fact.. Its the closest we will ever get to understanding.. Your playing with semantics now.

quiglythegreat

I don't know, what differance does it make?racer8dan

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

My Pet Iguana Henry Even Does Chemistry I think that's how it went back in the times of middle school. In high school I think they did it some other way.

Palantas

I'm not following what you're telling me.

Meathod

Purpose

Investigation

Hypothesis

Experiemnt

Data

Conclusion

I think that's how it went. It was so long ago I can't remember.

Right, I just don't think math is the best example of that. One is bound by logic and reason and the other is bound by the perceptions of an individual, which can be altered based on environmental factors. So people in different times had a different perception on that subject. Oh and I meant intangible, sorry about that.

frostybanana

Are you aware there is a philosophical perspective that morality is not bound by the perception of an individual? There is an idea that it is objective, not in the sense that it exists somewhere physically, but that it exists apart of any single person. Moral statements can be compared to this "moral code" and determined to be true or false. Under this perspective, the explanation of different people coming to different conclusions is not that the issue is subjective, but that one of them is incorrect (or they could both be incorrect), hence my math analogy. The person to whom I gave the math analogy was pretending this position didn't exist and using circular reasoning.

This is a non-explanation. Why are you on here making definitive statements when you can't explain them? You apparently believe that morality exists, as you reference it as if it did. What led you to this belief? Surely you can answer this. However, you also believe that nothing exists outside the physical world, and anything that does exist can be described and understood using the scientific method. Apply the scientific method to morality. For starters, at least describe the tests you would engineer to study morality.

What do the "senses" have to do with morality? Can we evaluate morality using the senses? Let's see...

• How big is morality?
• What is its mass?
• Does it smell good?
  

Palantas

So because I personally can't explain how the theory of relativity works, despite there being evidence for it, it doesn't exist... that's how you'd brush of what I'm saying I presume? You're asking me to prove that ideas about good or bad behaviour exists (with morality being a sense of behavioural conduct)... you can go out and demonstrate it for yourself. Ask people if they consider something to be right or wrong and bigo - you have proof of morality.

If you told me you believed in "God", I couldn't ask you to prove it. Your beliefs are true to you. Someone's morality is true to them. Morality is defined as behavioural conduct, and people conduct themselves with a behaviour all the time. Again, go and ask people. Test the hypothesis by putting people into situations that force them to behave or act a certain way.

You're grasping at straws.

So this proves morality is subjective by using the scientific method?

Palantas

Question: Is Morality Subjective?

Hypothesis: People have different moral values.

Testing the hypothesis using an experiment:

Create a survey that focuses on questions pertaining to behavioural conduct and whether the subject believes them to be riight/good or bad/wrong.

Survey 100 people in the Middle East who identify themselves as Muslim.

Survey 100 people in the Middle East who identify themselves as Christian.

Survey 100 people in Europe who identify themselves as Muslim

Survey 100 people in Europe who identify themselves as Christian

Survey 100 people in the US who identify themselves as Neo-Nazis

Survey 100 people in the US who identify themselves as atheist

Data analysis:

There were different answers among the 600 people surveyed.

Conclusion: People have different moral values. In some cases, moral values differed greatly among the various cultures and religions.

Yes. Obviously this should be elementary for you. Or are you going to refer me to some other non-specific source? You're awfully quick to criticize other peoples' beliefs when you apparently can't explain your own.

Palantas

The fact that you answered "yes" tells me all I need to know. Science isn't a belief without evidence. Science is the best thing we have to explain things in the natural world, and it's backed up with evidence. Something religion cannot claim.

Show me something better than science that provides even more evidence, and I'll be interested in talking to you.

[QUOTE="frostybanana"]

Right, I just don't think math is the best example of that. One is bound by logic and reason and the other is bound by the perceptions of an individual, which can be altered based on environmental factors. So people in different times had a different perception on that subject. Oh and I meant intangible, sorry about that.

Palantas

Are you aware there is a philosophical perspective that morality is not bound by the perception of an individual? There is an idea that it is objective, not in the sense that it exists somewhere physically, but that it exists apart of any single person. Moral statements can be compared to this "moral code" and determined to be true or false. Under this perspective, the explanation of different people coming to different conclusions is not that the issue is subjective, but that one of them is incorrect (or they could both be incorrect)

Morality encompasses moral and immoral behaviour. The definitions of which, are subjective. There's no right or wrong.

who cares how old it is,

Nobody knows how old the earth is. It could be 4000 or 40000000000000000, for all we know.

racer8dan

[QUOTE="frostybanana"]

Right, I just don't think math is the best example of that. One is bound by logic and reason and the other is bound by the perceptions of an individual, which can be altered based on environmental factors. So people in different times had a different perception on that subject. Oh and I meant intangible, sorry about that.

Palantas

Are you aware there is a philosophical perspective that morality is not bound by the perception of an individual? There is an idea that it is objective, not in the sense that it exists somewhere physically, but that it exists apart of any single person. Moral statements can be compared to this "moral code" and determined to be true or false. Under this perspective, the explanation of different people coming to different conclusions is not that the issue is subjective, but that one of them is incorrect (or they could both be incorrect), hence my math analogy. The person to whom I gave the math analogy was pretending this position didn't exist and using circular reasoning.

That's assuming that there is a moral code embedded in every human upon birth, which I don't necessarily think is true because at our most primal, humans are like animals and so they will do whatever is necessary to survive since that's the highest priority on the hierarchy of needs. That includes seemingly "immoral" things like cannibalism. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is something a human learns over time through their environment. The mind has to explore that idea, though. And we all form ideas and thoughts differently, especially when we're exposed to different environments.

So a child who steals a candy bar and isn't told that it's immoral to do so, and furthermore receives no consequence for the action, will likely grow up feeling like stealing the candy bar was no big deal. But likewise, a child who is disciplined for poor behavior develops that idea of this is right and this is wrong.

My opinion on that whole issue is that morals are subjective to environments. Subjecting a group of people from a similar environment to questions about morals would likely result in similar responses. But you take those same questions to people all around the world, and you might be surprised what people find moral and what they find immoral.

So because I personally can't explain how the theory of relativity works, despite there being evidence for it, it doesn't exist... that's how you'd brush of what I'm saying I presume? You're asking me to prove that ideas about good or bad behaviour exists (with morality being a sense of behavioural conduct)... you can go out and demonstrate it for yourself. Ask people if they consider something to be right or wrong and bigo - you have proof of morality.

raynimrod

This "Go out and do research for me" is a popular "rebuttal" on this forum, but I'll go with it in this case. So let's say I go out and find some amoralists. Some people don't consider morality to exist at all. Obviously the postion that morality exists, and that it does not exist, are incompatible. You come down on the latter side of that argument. How did you prove this? I feely admitted that I can't prove morality exists. However you think that A.) Only things in the natural world exist, and B.) Anything that exists can be tested scientifically.

Let me point out that your method of scientific inquiry could also be used to prove that God exists. You can go out and demonstrate it for yourself. Ask people if they consider God to exist: If some of them anwers yes, then you have "proof" of God. (I also have proof of UFOs, vampires, and ESP.) That's some good science there for determining the reality of something: Go out and ask people their opinions on it.

If you told me you believed in "God", I couldn't ask you to prove it. Your beliefs are true to you. Someone's morality is true to them. Morality is defined as behavioural conduct, and people conduct themselves with a behaviour all the time. Again, go and ask people. Test the hypothesis by putting people into situations that force them to behave or act a certain way.

raynimrod

If you can't ask people to prove God exists, then what was all this about:

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

God is part of the metaphysical.. Meaning beyond the natural world.

raynimrod

In other words, non-existent?.

That and your follow-on question asking me to prove that things outside the natural world exist.

Speaking of forcing people to do something to test morality, morality assumes the existence of free will. Prove that free will exists in the natural world, and test it scientifically. Remember, if you can't do these two things, then... I dunno exactly.

Wait, I've got it... I'll ask people if they think they have free will or not. If they say "Yes," then that proves free will exists! Eureka.

You're grasping at straws.

raynimrod

Yeah, I can use weasel words too if I want.

Question: Is Morality Subjective?

(test follows)

raynimrod

That's not testing morality, and it's definitely not testing whether morality is subjective or not. That's testing peoples' opinions about morality. So like other people in this thread who enjoy circular logic, you've determined that morality is subjective by conducting a test that assumes morality is subjective. Your testing here completely ignores the question of whether morality is objective or subjective, which is ironically why you were conducting the test. Way to go.

Morality encompasses moral and immoral behaviour. The definitions of which, are subjective. There's no right or wrong.

raynimrod

Oh yeah, you've done a great job of "proving" that position, by saying that it's true.

The fact that you answered "yes" tells me all I need to know. Science isn't a belief without evidence. Science is the best thing we have to explain things in the natural world, and it's backed up with evidence. Something religion cannot claim.

raynimrod

Is this a tricky question I'm asking you? I don't think so. What is the evidence that proves the scientific method for you? Surely you've thought through this. If you're going to about questioning peoples' beliefs, I suggest you have a better explanation for your own than simply getting annoyed when people ask.

Palantas Are you this geeky when comes to philosophy? How in the world did you learn all this?

I don't agree with that perspective, but I understand what you're saying. That's one way to think about it, I suppose. However, there's no real way of knowing that's true short of isolating a newborn at birth from the rest of world and seeing the way they develop over time.

frostybanana

You don't have to agree with it. I don't think there's any way to prove the question scientifically at all. If there is a universal moralism, it obviously exists apart from the natural world, and as such the tools of science cannot be applied to it. There are lots of perspectives on morality. I think that a good way to deal with this is to apply critical thinking to various perspectives to figure out what you believe. A bad way is to simply assume your perspective is correct and "prove" it to yourself by repetition.

Palantas Are you this geeky when comes to philosophy? How in the world did you learn all this?

alexside1

One of my favorite questions to people on this forum is "How do you know that?" That's also a question I apply to myself as I go about my daily business. You come very quickly to the conclusion that you take a lot of things for granted, that your view of the world is as it is simply because you like it to be that way. A lot of smart people over a long period of history have thought a lot about a whole slew of fundamental issues, and you can use the tools of philosophy so you don't have to "re-invent the wheel" when you question your assumptions.

In closing, let me state emphatically that I am a dilettante in philosophy. I've barely scratched the surface of this stuff.

This "Go out and do research for me" is a popular "rebuttal" on this forum, but I'll go with it in this case. So let's say I go out and find some amoralists. Some people don't consider morality to exist at all.Palantas

So what? I could consider that thoughts don't exist.

However you think that A.) Only things in the natural world existPalantas

No, that's not what I think at all. You're making assumptions. My position is that things in the natural world can be demonstrated, tested, and explained using science, and that things outside the natural world are yet to have been demonstrated, tested, or explained using science.

, and B.) Anything that exists can be tested scientifically.Palantas

...or at least demonstrated - you keep ignoring that.

Let me point out that your method of scientific inquiry could also be used to prove that God exists. You can go out and demonstrate it for yourself. Ask people if they consider God to exist: If some of them anwers yes, then you have "proof" of God. (I also have proof of UFOs, vampires, and ESP.) That's some good science there for determining the reality of something: Go out and ask people their opinions on it.Palantas

You've completely misunderstood, obviously. Much like you have throughout this entire discussion.

All that test would explain is that they believe God exists. I have no doubt that people believe God exists, but it has nothing to do with proving God actually exists, but for some reason you think it does.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

If you told me you believed in "God", I couldn't ask you to prove it. Your beliefs are true to you. Someone's morality is true to them. Morality is defined as behavioural conduct, and people conduct themselves with a behaviour all the time. Again, go and ask people. Test the hypothesis by putting people into situations that force them to behave or act a certain way.

Palantas

If you can't ask people to prove God exists, then what was all this about:

Again, you've completely misread or misunderstood.

At which point does me asking someone to prove what their belief is, equate to me asking someone to prove that their belief is true?

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

In other words, non-existent?.

Palantas

That and your follow-on question asking me to prove that things outside the natural world exist.

Speaking of forcing people to do something to test morality, morality assumes the existence of free will. Prove that free will exists in the natural world, and test it scientifically. Remember, if you can't do these two things, then... I dunno exactly.

Wait, I've got it... I'll ask people if they think they have free will or not. If they say "Yes," then that proves free will exists! Eureka.

As per my above comments, you completely misunderstood my position and what I was saying.

And if by free-will you mean the ability to make a choice for yourself, that doesn't need proving - it exists and can be demonstrated. I won't waste my time with this endless circular argument you've engaged in by proving everything you want proving, just like I won't prove that soundwaves exist, despite there being an abundance of evidence to support it.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

Question: Is Morality Subjective?

(test follows)

Palantas

That's not testing morality, and it's definitely not testing whether morality is subjective or not. That's testing peoples' opinions about morality. So like other people in this thread who enjoy circular logic, you've determined that morality is subjective by conducting a test that assumes morality is subjective.

How did you come to that conclusion? All the test did was assume that morality exists.

Morality is subjective, so the rest of your paragraph is meaningless.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

Morality encompasses moral and immoral behaviour. The definitions of which, are subjective. There's no right or wrong.

Palantas

Oh yeah, you've done a great job of "proving" that position, by saying that it's true.

I showed you how it could be demonstrated. Much more than you've done so far, I might add... which is nothing.

What is the evidence that proves the scientific method for you? Palantas

The fact that it provides consistent results that can be tested and demonstrated. I've said this enough times already, and I've also asked you to offer something better. Where is it?

If you're going to about questioning peoples' beliefs, I suggest you have a better explanation for your own than simply getting annoyed when people ask.

Palantas

While you still consider science to be a belief, it's at least supported by evidence. All you're doing is providing a regressionist argument. When there's evidence for God, I'll be interested and I'll listen. However, while there's evidence for science, I think I'll use that. At least science can back up its claims.

So what? I could consider that thoughts don't exist.

raynimrod

Yeah you could. How do you define "thoughts"? Are you wanting to explore this now? I'm not sure how this comment of yours relates to the belief that morality does not exist.

No, that's not what I think at all. You're making assumptions. My position is that things in the natural world can be demonstrated, tested, and explained using science, and that things outside the natural world are yet to have been demonstrated, tested, or explained using science.

raynimrod

I directly asked this. You responded with a question. Yeah I did assume that you held that position. You've had quite a while to correct that. Anyway, I'll ask it again: Do you believe that only things in the natural world exist?

You've completely misunderstood, obviously. Much like you have throughout this entire discussion.

All that test would explain is that they believe God exists. I have no doubt that people believe God exists, but it has nothing to do with proving God actually exists, but for some reason you think it does.

raynimrod

Maybe you didn't understand that I was mocking your absurd "experiment" you performed on morality. All your test about morality did is explain that people believe it exists. To you, this is sufficient to prove it exists. Explain why this rationale does not work for God (or whatever else).

If you told me you believed in "God", I couldn't ask you to prove it...

At which point does me asking someone to prove what their belief is, equate to me asking someone to prove that their belief is true?

raynimrod

In a literal reading of your statement up there, the pronoun "it" refers to "God." Which of these are you asking:

• If you told me you believed God, I couldn't ask you to prove that you believe in him.
• if you told me you believed in God, I couldn't ask you to prove God.

And if by free-will you mean the ability to make a choice for yourself, that doesn't need proving - it exists and can be demonstrated. I won't waste my time with this endless circular argument you've engaged in by proving everything you want proving, just like I won't prove that soundwaves exist, despite there being an abundance of evidence to support it.

raynimrod

Go ahead and demonstrate it. Will this involve more opinion polls to test intangible concepts?

How did you come to that conclusion? All the test did was assume that morality exists.

raynimrod

I assumed you were "testing" whether or not morality was subjective with that religions poll. But you weren't; you were just testing that it exists, which again takes us back to you not testing morality, but testing peoples' opinions on morality.

Morality is subjective, so the rest of your paragraph is meaningless.

raynimrod

Oh well it must be, because you say so. Still waiting on the scientific test that proves this.

The fact that it provides consistent results that can be tested and demonstrated. I've said this enough times already, and I've also asked you to offer something better. Where is it?

raynimrod

The fact that the scientific method provides consistent, testable results seems to make it valid according to the scientific method. So what, you just proved that science is true by using science? Is circular reasoning a fetish with you? I don't have anything better than science to explain the natural world. I already said I accept science. I accept its conceits on faith. I just wanna see you "prove" it.

These days it is so cool to believe in god and not into the science crap. Let those people who believe in this fairy tales be, they are not going to do much in their lives anyway. I mean when it comes to doing real work, people go to scientists and engineers, not to religious fairy tellers. chandu83

It is your position that a religious scientist or engineer cannot accomplish much in their lives? Maybe I'm not following this. Can you clarify?

[QUOTE="chandu83"]These days it is so cool to believe in god and not into the science crap. Let those people who believe in this fairy tales be, they are not going to do much in their lives anyway. I mean when it comes to doing real work, people go to scientists and engineers, not to religious fairy tellers. Palantas

It is your position that a religious scientist or engineer cannot accomplish much in their lives? Maybe I'm not following this. Can you clarify?

Everybody knows that god is a flying spaghetti monster.Nick3306

/slap, everyone know it's the invisible pink unicorn

These days it is so cool to believe in god and not into the science crap. Let those people who believe in this fairy tales be, they are not going to do much in their lives anyway. I mean when it comes to doing real work, people go to scientists and engineers, not to religious fairy tellers. chandu83

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="chandu83"]These days it is so cool to believe in god and not into the science crap. Let those people who believe in this fairy tales be, they are not going to do much in their lives anyway. I mean when it comes to doing real work, people go to scientists and engineers, not to religious fairy tellers. chandu83

It is your position that a religious scientist or engineer cannot accomplish much in their lives? Maybe I'm not following this. Can you clarify?

That is somewhat true. Yes. I mean these religious "scientists" are probably very intelligent people, but not in total contact with reality, and tend to believe in fairy tales and so on. But that's OK. End of the day, no one really knows the truth.

Especially the ones who say they do know the truth! I mean the only know chance of actually knowing the truth is through science. After all religion is not evolving. So...yeah, its pretty pointless.

You call it fairy tales like you know everthing, then you say no one really knows the truth. WTF is this logic?