kevin
Registered User
"That's one theory. I can disprove it pretty easily - I don't believe there is a higher power, but I live a moral life. Why? I choose to; it's to my benefit and the benefit of those around me that I act morally. I don't act morally because I want to get into heaven or avoid hell, I just want to live a good life and help other people. Society as a whole needs ethics to function, and any good ethical system is based on a compromise between societal good and personal liberty. One can base systems of morality around a concept of God, but one can also have a consistent and practical secular values system. The major difference is that a God-based morality says, "do this, because God says so," while a secular moral system says, "do this, because it's in the best interests of humanity." Even the rules can be the same in the two systems, but they have a different basis."
actually i would argue that you arent choosing at all. your "choices" are simply mathematical equations, which appear as "choices" to you because it fits into that program of yourself. you are simply a product of the laws of the universe, no different than heat transfer or gravitation.
"To quote Max Tegmark: "the borderline between physics and metaphysics is defined by whether a theory is experimentally testable, not whether it is weird or involves unobservable entities." "
well i disagree with max on that. it's based on the assumption that the metaphysical is ultimately within the physical realm. basically implying that physicality (and it's methods, testability, etc) are the judge and jury.
"If I had the time and intelligence, I could look at all the scientific observations and arrive at a conclusion myself. I trust scientists to do this for me because I have a job that keeps me busy, and scientists keep each other honest. "
you kind of missed my point. i was referring to the instances of proving that your parents love you for instance, by their actions. this is not provable as far as i can see, cause grand deception can always be argued. in terms of science, this is still possible. the entire world could be ganged up against you- how do you know? you certainly cant prove it is not (it's that whole truman show doxology). you mentioned the key word "trust" in your statement. but beyond this, how do you even know that the laws of the universe are really the laws of the universe? maybe our reference frame is very finite. the carnot engine believes that entropy decreases...we know that entropy of the system only is decreasing, the universe is increasing....or do we? what if this universe is only a small bubble in a vastly greater universe or dimension. i know this sounds wierd, but the point is that even science is limited to reference frames and hence is not completely provable as an absolute, no matter how much evidence there is.
the paper im referring to is the one where the entire light exited the tube before it finished entering.
my most solid argument for the existence of God is that this hasnt turned into a flame war yet. mich-osu game is still pending.
actually i would argue that you arent choosing at all. your "choices" are simply mathematical equations, which appear as "choices" to you because it fits into that program of yourself. you are simply a product of the laws of the universe, no different than heat transfer or gravitation.
"To quote Max Tegmark: "the borderline between physics and metaphysics is defined by whether a theory is experimentally testable, not whether it is weird or involves unobservable entities." "
well i disagree with max on that. it's based on the assumption that the metaphysical is ultimately within the physical realm. basically implying that physicality (and it's methods, testability, etc) are the judge and jury.
"If I had the time and intelligence, I could look at all the scientific observations and arrive at a conclusion myself. I trust scientists to do this for me because I have a job that keeps me busy, and scientists keep each other honest. "
you kind of missed my point. i was referring to the instances of proving that your parents love you for instance, by their actions. this is not provable as far as i can see, cause grand deception can always be argued. in terms of science, this is still possible. the entire world could be ganged up against you- how do you know? you certainly cant prove it is not (it's that whole truman show doxology). you mentioned the key word "trust" in your statement. but beyond this, how do you even know that the laws of the universe are really the laws of the universe? maybe our reference frame is very finite. the carnot engine believes that entropy decreases...we know that entropy of the system only is decreasing, the universe is increasing....or do we? what if this universe is only a small bubble in a vastly greater universe or dimension. i know this sounds wierd, but the point is that even science is limited to reference frames and hence is not completely provable as an absolute, no matter how much evidence there is.
the paper im referring to is the one where the entire light exited the tube before it finished entering.
my most solid argument for the existence of God is that this hasnt turned into a flame war yet. mich-osu game is still pending.