Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Half right, half wrong. Morality is an emergent property all right, but it can't be "independent of physical considerations" - at least not unless you can manage first to demonstrate a non-physical, and then show that it's a suitable medium for a free-floating morality to occupy. No physical (eg people) = no morality, which is why for example there's no morality on the moon.

By removed from physical considerations I mean moral realism is not affected by physical factors. E.g. Temperature, time,gravitation, etc.

What that does to your substratism I know not.

[Walter]

By removed from physical considerations I mean moral realism is not affected by physical factors. E.g. Temperature, time,gravitation, etc.

What that does to your substratism I know not.

give it a rest will ya. Word soup from a tin makes more sense .

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Illogicalist,

Let me talk you through it all again

Again?

Anyways, by all means give it a try…

Adam and Eve enjoy communion with God in a state of Edenic bliss.
They are given an instruction to avoid the knowledge of good and evil.

BEEEEPPP!!!!

For that to work, they would have to know what “evil” meant for it not to be just white noise. Which is fine if you like this kind of thing, but it rules out one of your mutually contradictory options (ie, that they knew only good).

The rest of your “explanation” fails accordingly.
 

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

What I was clearly saying was that, if this particular iron-age creation myth is your bag then knock yourself out, but you don’t get to posit mutually contradictory positions like “A&E knew only good” and “A&E knew evil and so should have avoided it”.

You can have either one, but not both.   

Adam and Eve, mankind are therefore culpable of breach of trust and of disbelieving God and of having a lucky dip, a punt, a gamble.

Wrong again. Gambles involve consequences. If in this case the consequences were good a outcome vs a bad outcome you would need to be able to conceptualise at least what “bad” meant – something you couldn’t do if you “knew only good”.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Redefinerist,

By removed from physical considerations I mean moral realism is not affected by physical factors. E.g. Temperature, time,gravitation, etc.

But what you actually said was, "independent of physical considerations". If you want to re-define that now as something like, "independent of just a narrow set of specific physical considerations" that's fine, but it's not what you said.

It's also debatable by the way - if I got you hot enough, are you suggesting that your morality about, say, not stealing a bottle of water from Tesco wouldn't change?

What that does to your substratism I know not.

Nothing at all, any more than it does for other emergent properties like language and aesthetics.

[ippy]

A moral reality independent of what the physical circumstances. Try doing without one. An evolved morality has to be morally real for instance. But the resultant morality is emerged and independent of physical considerations.

I'd like to know why you left this part of my post off of the menu: 'You like the rest of you religiousosos need to prove your case before it's even worth a discussion'.

After missing that part of my post to you off you then put together a group of unrelated words that didn't really mean anything, I would find it interesting to know what your reply would be, if you directed it to the whole of that original post of mine to you, would be?

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Redefinerist,

But what you actually said was, "independent of physical considerations". If you want to re-define that now as something like, "independent of just a narrow set of specific physical considerations" that's fine, but it's not what you said.

It's also debatable by the way - if I got you hot enough, are you suggesting that your morality about, say, not stealing a bottle of water from Tesco wouldn't change?

Nothing at all, any more than it does for other emergent properties like language and aesthetics.

Firstly I'm happy that you have converted to moral realism even though you think your model to be correct.
let me outline some problems.

You only have a circular argument to show that people are purely physical and hence a problem showing that morality is physical.

Secondly you need to present ''moral matter'' and SI units for morality and perhaps a particle for morality.

This in turn leads you into science of the gaps territory where science will eventually discover what morality is.

You have to come clean on what you want emergence to mean.....a new physical system or morality which is real in it's own right and not fully describable in terms of physics.

You cannot retreat into moral irrealism having proposed the evolved morality, protomorality, emerged morality, and physical morality.

That should keep you busy.

I think we evolve into moral capability analogous to mathematical capability.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Illogicalist,

Again?

Anyways, by all means give it a try…

BEEEEPPP!!!!

For that to work, they would have to know what “evil” meant for it not to be just white noise. Which is fine if you like this kind of thing, but it rules out one of your mutually contradictory options (ie, that they knew only good).

The rest of your “explanation” fails accordingly.
 
What I was clearly saying was that, if this particular iron-age creation myth is your bag then knock yourself out, but you don’t get to posit mutually contradictory positions like “A&E knew only good” and “A&E knew evil and so should have avoided it”.

You can have either one, but not both.   

Wrong again. Gambles involve consequences. If in this case the consequences were good a outcome vs a bad outcome you would need to be able to conceptualise at least what “bad” meant – something you couldn’t do if you “knew only good”.

Points in your post are debateable
Suffice it to say you can take somebody's word on trust that you shouldn't do something without direct experience of that thing.

They were told not to do it The Gamble was status quo or to have it all. The first balls up caused by acquisitive materialism.

[Walter]

Points in your post are debateable
Suffice it to say you can take somebody's word on trust that you shouldn't do something without direct experience of that thing.

They were told not to do it The Gamble was status quo or to have it all. The first balls up caused by acquisitive materialism.

loop-di-loop alphabet soup

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's also debatable by the way - if I got you hot enough, are you suggesting that your morality about, say, not stealing a bottle of water from Tesco wouldn't change?

Interesting point.

Firstly, the wrongness of stealing a bottle of water might remain unaffected and also the rightness of saving your life by stealing a bottle of water does not necessarily change. Therefore Morality can be said to be independent of physical factors.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

I'd like to know why you left this part of my post off of the menu:...

It's Vlad - that's the kind of thing he does.

[Shaker]

No. they wanted knowledge of evil and pursued it.

How did they want knowledge of evil and how did they pursue it before they had eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Before availing themselves of the fruit where did the knowledge and desire come from?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Misrepresentationist,

Firstly I'm happy that you have converted to moral realism even though you think your model to be correct.

You don’t know what “moral realism” means, and I haven’t converted to anything.

let me outline some problems.

You can try, but presumably you’ll attempt that only as a diversion away from the problem you gave yourself with two mutually contradictory statements. Why not deal with that instead?

You only have a circular argument to show that people are purely physical and hence a problem showing that morality is physical.

Wrong again. You never have grasped the meaning of circular reasoning have you, which is ironic given your fondness for doing it. Here’s a clue: finding there to be no reason to think that people are other than physical and asserting them necessarily to be only physical are not the same thing.   

Secondly…

You don’t have a “secondly” because your effort at a firstly just collapsed.

…you need to present ''moral matter'' and SI units for morality and perhaps a particle for morality.

You’re just disintegrating into incoherence now. Why would units of measurement be needed for the evidence to stand nonetheless? What units of measurement for language or for aesthetics would you propose?

This in turn leads you into science of the gaps territory where science will eventually discover what morality is.

It can’t “lead” anywhere when it’s a false claim.

You have to come clean on what you want emergence to mean.....a new physical system or morality which is real in it's own right and not fully describable in terms of physics.

Don’t be silly. I don’t “want” emergence to mean anything – I just accept what it does mean. Are language or aesthetics “fully describable in terms of physics”? If not, are they too – according to you – just floating around “out there” somewhere?   

You cannot retreat into moral irrealism having proposed the evolved morality, protomorality, emerged morality, and physical morality.

You cannot just retreat into incoherence and kid yourself that you’re making a point, so why keep doing it?

That should keep you busy.

Yes – for about the nanosecond it took to unravel.

I think we evolve into moral capability analogous to mathematical capability.

That’s nice for you. So?

Points in your post are debateable

Only by someone capable of debate, but by all means surprise us...

Suffice it to say you can take somebody's word on trust that you shouldn't do something without direct experience of that thing.

...or not.

Not when you have no comprehension of an unwelcome consequence if you do you can’t. If “all you know is good”, what difference would it make either way? 

They were told not to do it The Gamble was status quo or to have it all.

No, there was no gamble – and nor could there have been when the only possible outcomes were good.

The first balls up caused by acquisitive materialism.

And back to the alphabet soup school of cod philosophy.

You crashed, you burned. Again. Move on.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

How did they want knowledge of evil and how did they pursue it before they had eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Before availing themselves of the fruit where did the knowledge and desire come from?

Doesn't work does it. Vlad the Irrationalist would populate the myth with characters who on the one hand "knew only good" but on the other had been tipped off beforehand by "God" about evil. and therefore could have known only good after all.

Hmmm....

[ippy]

ippy,

It's Vlad - that's the kind of thing he does.

Blue

Yes the thought did occur; when most people do this it always looks to me as though they think they're wrong footing whatever you may have posted to them, Hope was a past master of this habit, although I couldn't pass on the master bit to Vlad.

I do think most of these exchanges here on this forum at the root it's realy necessary for the religion minded posters to establish at least a little credibility like proving anything from their workshop manuals that might have something, I've yet to see, anything proved.

What do you recon is Vlad's first language? I wouldn't have put any money on it being English.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shakes,

Doesn't work does it. Vlad the Irrationalist would populate the myth with characters who on the one hand "knew only good" but on the other had been tipped off beforehand by "God" about evil. and therefore could have known only good after all.

Hmmm....

Tipped of about evil?.....by being told to avoid knowledge about it. People round here moan that God didn't warn them. That isn't true. He did. They chose to go against God. What they found in the world of good and evil, we now all know. But that is secondary to breaking trust with God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Misrepresentationist,

You don’t know what “moral realism” means, and I haven’t converted to anything.

You can try, but presumably you’ll attempt that only as a diversion away from the problem you gave yourself with two mutually contradictory statements. Why not deal with that instead?

Wrong again. You never have grasped the meaning of circular reasoning have you, which is ironic given your fondness for doing it. Here’s a clue: finding there to be no reason to think that people are other than physical and asserting them necessarily to be only physical are not the same thing.   

You don’t have a “secondly” because your effort at a firstly just collapsed.

You’re just disintegrating into incoherence now. Why would units of measurement be needed for the evidence to stand nonetheless? What units of measurement for language or for aesthetics would you propose?

It can’t “lead” anywhere when it’s a false claim.

Don’t be silly. I don’t “want” emergence to mean anything – I just accept what it does mean. Are language or aesthetics “fully describable in terms of physics”? If not, are they too – according to you – just floating around “out there” somewhere?   

You cannot just retreat into incoherence and kid yourself that you’re making a point, so why keep doing it?

Yes – for about the nanosecond it took to unravel.

That’s nice for you. So?

Only by someone capable of debate, but by all means surprise us...

...or not.

Not when you have no comprehension of an unwelcome consequence if you do you can’t. If “all you know is good”, what difference would it make either way? 

No, there was no gamble – and nor could there have been when the only possible outcomes were good.

And back to the alphabet soup school of cod philosophy.

You crashed, you burned. Again. Move on.

The only possible outcomes in a choice between good and something other are good? Eh?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Even More Irrational,

Tipped of about evil.....by being told to avoid knowledge about it.

You can’t be “tipped of” (“off” presumably) “about evil” when you have no concept of what “evil” (let alone “knowledge about it”) even means (because “all you know is good”).

Try again…

…on second thoughts.

People round here moan that God didn't warn them. That isn't true. He did. They chose to go against God. What they found in the world of good and evil, we now all know. But that is secondary to breaking trust with God.

Oh dear.

First, people don’t “moan” about what a god did or didn’t do at all because the conjecture “God” is just something you assert to be true.

Second, even if there was a “God”, “He” couldn’t have warned someone about evil in any case when all he’d equipped them to know about was good. What would the word “evil” even mean to such people?

Third, you can’t “break trust” with something when you think any consequence would be the same – ie, good.

Give it up. Seriously, just stop doing this to yourself – it’s painful to watch.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Ipster,

What do you recon is Vlad's first language?

Gibberish.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

The only possible outcomes in a choice between good and something other are good? Eh?

There is no possible outcome other than a good one when "all you know is good".

Think about it...

...oh, sorry - I forgot.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Even More Irrational,

You can’t be “tipped of” (“off” presumably) “about evil” when you have no concept of what “evil” (let alone “knowledge about it”) even means (because “all you know is good”).

Try again…

…on second thoughts.

Oh dear.

First, people don’t “moan” about what a god did or didn’t do at all because the conjecture “God” is just something you assert to be true.

Second, even if there was a “God”, “He” couldn’t have warned someone about evil in any case when all he’d equipped them to know about was good. What would the word “evil” even mean to such people?

Third, you can’t “break trust” with something when you think any consequence would be the same – ie, good.

Give it up. Seriously, just stop doing this to yourself – it’s painful to watch.

I agree we shouldn't stretch metaphors
But the point is they were warned away from it. God was thus trying to save them from it.
They however wanted everything and broke trust with God.

Therefore your third is a deliberate false argument.
I shall leave you to work it out since I don't want to waste my time with you.

[SusanDoris]

Just dropping in here with a word of ... ... not quite sure what to call it ... encouragement? gratitude? appreciation? of Vlad's posts ... and here again I'm stuck for a suitable adjective!! You see, they do give me the pleasure of reading all the response posts !

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just dropping in here with a word of ... ... not quite sure what to call it ... encouragement? gratitude? appreciation? of Vlad's posts ... and here again I'm stuck for a suitable adjective!! You see, they do give me the pleasure of reading all the response posts !

Posse-ism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the I Lost So I’m Sulking-ist,

I agree we shouldn't stretch metaphors

This from someone who wants to talk about Adam and Eve apparently with a straight face?

Blimey.

But the point is they were warned away from it. God was thus trying to save them from it.

They however wanted everything and broke trust with God.

No, that’s not the point at all. This “God” of yours could have “warned them” of anything “He” liked – regardless of any response at all to that warning, the answer would have appeared to them though to be a good one if “all they knew was good”. There could have been no bad answer if they had no concept of "bad". That's the point.

Therefore your third is a deliberate false argument.

Wrong again for the reason I just explained and you keep avoiding.

I shall leave you to work it out since I don't want to waste my time with you.

I “worked it out” before you did (or have). Do let me know when you figure out where you’ve gone wrong this time though.

[ippy]

 

Ipster,

Gibberish.

 

Sounds about right to me.

ippy

[NicholasMarks]

ippy, bluehillside, Vlad, Susan, 

Someone here want to ridicule Adam and Eve??...because, if you do you are ridiculing Almighty God first...as well as every Christian, every Jew and of course, Jesus Christ, himself. We all struggle with this Biblical account but it seems to me that science and Biblical teaching can come together on this point if we have an open mind...and the beauty of an open mind is that it is very healthy indeed, which causes concern when you realise just how closed-minded people can be. The innocent child has an open mind and in their innocence they become a little like Adam and Eve. They obey what their parents tell them and Adam and Eve should have too. Our genetic sciences are still very new to us scientifically, but not to an all knowing God.

He, apparently took a lifeless, void planet, and resurrected it. We know this because the planet was tidally locked although the evidence suggest it had all the life supporting mechanics already on board because there was darkness on the face of the watery deep....It was probably knocked out of kilter when visited by Wormwood, previously, but Almighty God had it surveyed and decided to resurrect it...hence Adam and Eve.

The whole process of preparation wouldn't take more than a week because it was all a question of spinning the planet out of its tidal lock and thereby its life supporting mechanics restarted and we are told about this, step by step, as it happened.

So...Adam and Eve were genetically perfect as Jesus was, but they decided to be persuaded to alter their genetics from pure to deformed...all by trying to scam God. This tells us how our genetic health starts to deform when we turn away from being childlike and start lying and deceiving...scamming and listening to evil...but it isn't the end of the world because Jesus taught us to use his righteous mechanics to recover by...so only the foolish will ignore him.