Where do good and evil come from?

Onesimus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApVYpBwXWLk

What do you think of this short 5 minute explanation?

Watch the whole thing, I thought it was very interesting.

Extinction

Good and evil don't come from anywhere. They are just words used to describe acts by humans.

charlemont

You can't have one without the other, Its our emotions that can judge good and bad like being happy or sad..

Chuck Stone

God and devil.
Good and evil.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Onesimus wrote: »

What do you think of this short 5 minute explanation?

Nothing new, I'm afraid. My reaction is identical to what I thought about the (identical) argument of that William Lane Craig guy.

GCU wrote: »

I think what he's trying to do is build a sort of "have you stopped beating your wife" argument around the disquiet that some might have of agreeing the universe to be amoral.

I can't say that it's written in the stars that beating your wife is immoral, as I don't contend that there is an objective morality. I can only say that it might not make you happy in the long run.

So what he's really trying to do (just based on the quote you included) is work backwards from the strong possibility that whomever he's debating with won't want to say "I think wife beating is unpleasant, but there's no natural order to the universe that it offends". Once he's trapped the other guy into saying wife beating is inherently wrong, he's got you. If wife beating does offend some universal morality, then it pretty much does follow that some moral law-giving being is the source of it.

Its just a nonsense argument, as the only way of establishing a morality to be objective is to demonstrate its base. In other words, you've to demonstrate that the moral law-giving being exists first and then you can demonstrate that wife beating offends the given laws.

If discussed properly, it would just be a circular argument.

"How do you know there is a supreme being?"

"Because we can see the objective morality given by the supreme being."

"But how to we know this morality is objective?"

"Because its the one given to us by the supreme being."

Rinse, repeat as required.

Michael Nugent

I see he ends by describing himself as

"I'm Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, for Prager University."

As opposed to describing himself with something like (paraphrased by me)

"I'm Peter Kreeft, author of Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Christianity for Modern Pagans, and Fundamentals of the Faith, and I have also recently argued that gay marriage is like a three-sided square. Also, while in this video I argue that all previous generations were simply wrong when they believed that slavery was acceptable, in my "gay marriage as a three-sided square" piece, I argue that the consensus of all other societies before our own, while not infallible, is a serious authority, and that it is far less likely than that only one culture, the one we happen to be in, is right and the rest of humanity is wrong."

http://www.peterkreeft.com/about.htm

Sycopat

It's pretty meh tbh.

It starts with the premise that moral good and evil really exist.

This premise is flawed, and biased, in that it allows him to preclude the possibility that morality is subjective.

All of his arguments are then based on contrasting (extreme) subjective moral stances from the position that their must be an objective morality behind them.

Then he does a bait and switch by trying to swap objective morality for religion, as if he's proven morality to be objective, when in fact objective morality was his starting assumption.

Not sure if it comes under 'begging the question', but it's definitely a logical fallacy to prove something by assuming it to be true.

Onesimus

Extinction wrote: »

Good and evil don't come from anywhere. They are just words used to describe acts by humans.

And black and white don't come from anywhere, they are just words used by humans to describe those colors but they are still two different colors aren't they?

use semantics all you want, but semantics don't change realities and that reality is that there is good and evil. But where does it come from? How can atheists only believe in the visible when the human mind/morality is invisible? Dr.Peter Kreeft seems to explain it very well here I thought.

I am interested in more responses and comments.

strobe

Onesimus wrote: »

And black and white don't come from anywhere, they are just words used by humans to describe those colors but they are still two different colors aren't they?

use semantics all you want, but semantics don't change realities and that reality is that there is good and evil. But where does it come from? How can atheists only believe in the visible when the human mind/morality is invisible? Dr.Peter Kreeft seems to explain it very well here I thought.

I am interested in more responses and comments.

I think you'll find most people here don't accept the premise that there is an objective morality Onesimus, so first you will need to attempt demonstrate that there is, or put forward a convincing argument as to why you believe there is, rather than just stating that there is. And once you have done so and maybe managed to convince someone of the reasonableness of the premise, go on to ask what would then be a valid question as to where that objective morality comes from. But first thing first.

Onesimus

strobe wrote: »

I think you'll find most people here don't accept the premise that there is an objective morality Onesimus, so first you will need to attempt demonstrate that there is, or put forward a convincing argument as to why you believe there is, rather than just stating that there is. And once you have done so, go on to ask what would then be a valid question as to where objective morality comes from. But first thing first.

I'm here to share with you this video, which ( lets be fair ) gives it in just 5 minutes. Take a look at what he says about objective morality, how it exists and then get back to me.

strobe

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm here to share with you this video, which ( lets be fair ) gives it in just 5 minutes. Take a look at what he says about objective morality, how it exists and then get back to me.

That's fair enough, I expect it's nothing I haven't heard before, but bare with me.

strobe

strobe wrote: »

That's fair enough, I expect it's nothing I haven't heard before, but bare with me.

K, done. Ahh, here's the problem, unless I'm completely missing something here, as I expected from the video title "If good and evil exist...", what the video does is begin with the premise that objective morality exists and then goes on to criticise what it presents as atheist arguments for the source of this objective morality. Where as, as I above presupposed, most atheists here (all that I have come across I think) do not accept that objective morality exists in the first place and as such do not use any arguments to try and explain it's source. What the video does not do is attempt to first support the initial premise, i.e that objective morality exists. This is what I am saying you need to first do, and what the guy in the video should have done first. It's not enough to just ask people to accept the initial premise blindly. I mean fair enough if his video is addressed to people who already accept that objective morality exists, but deny it's source as being God... but that's not, I think, the crowd your post is addressed to when you post it here.

I actually do genuinely find this stuff fascinating though, so if you have any videos that do argue in favour of the existence of objective morality, or would like to argue for it's existence yourself, not whether objective morality would be more or less preferable, mind, but that it actually does exist, please post ahead.

Onesimus

strobe wrote: »

K, done. Ahh, here's the problem, unless I'm completely missing something here, as I expected from the video title "If good and evil exist...", what the video does is begin with the premise that objective morality exists and then goes on to criticise what it presents as atheist arguments for the source of this objective morality. Where as, as I above presupposed, most atheists here (all that I have come across I think) do not accept that objective morality exists in the first place and as such do not use any arguments to try and explain it's source. What the video does not do is attempt to first support the initial premise, i.e that objective morality exists. This is what I am saying you need to first do, and what the guy in the video should have done first. It's not enough to just ask people to accept the initial premise blindly. I mean fair enough if his video is addressed to people who already accept that objective morality exists, but deny it's source as being God... but that's not, I think, the crowd your post is addressed to when you post it here.

I actually do genuinely find this stuff fascinating though, so if you have any videos that do argue in favour of the existence of objective morality, or would like to argue for it's existence yourself, not whether objective morality would be more or less preferable, mind, but that it actually does exist, please post ahead.

Could you give me an example of a subjective morality? I am assuming that this means, what is right for you is right for you, and what is right for me is right for me even though it is contrary to whats right for you?

Is that subjective morality?

Extinction

Onesimus wrote: »

And black and white don't come from anywhere, they are just words used by humans to describe those colors but they are still two different colors aren't they?

use semantics all you want, but semantics don't change realities and that reality is that there is good and evil. But where does it come from? How can atheists only believe in the visible when the human mind/morality is invisible? Dr.Peter Kreeft seems to explain it very well here I thought.

I am interested in more responses and comments.

Yes, black and white are words used to describe the sensory perception of colour. As I already said, god and evil are just words that describe acts by humans. If there were no humans then there would be no good or evil acts. Good and evil are not entities that come from anywhere, they are acts and deeds done by humans.

Also, my mind and my morality is far from invisible to me, I am very much aware of them.

Aciiiiiiiiiiid

I haven't watched the video but most "evil" acts can be attributed to the limited nature of (and competition for) resources in the world (food/water/energy/land/sexual partners/etc) so that's where I believe it comes from.

Onesimus

Extinction wrote: »

Yes, black and white are words used to describe the sensory perception of colour. As I already said, god and evil are just words that describe acts by humans. If there were no humans then there would be no good or evil acts. Good and evil are not entities that come from anywhere, they are acts and deeds done by humans.

Also, my mind and my morality is far from invisible to me, I am very much aware of them.

Morality cannot be studied physically, they ( morals ) neither exist in DNA, or any part of the physical human and cannot be studied by science at all. Therefore seeing as they do not exist in the physcial, and not in the human, they are laws ( moral laws ) bestowed upon the human from something supernatural.

By the way if there were no God, there would be no Atheists. So. . . how do you know if there were no humans there would be no good or evil seeing as I have demonstrated that morality is invisible, we are aware of them, but morality does not belong to our physical bodies at all. How do you know this then with all of that said, that good and evil would not exist if the human did not exist?

Onesimus

Aciiiiiiiiiiid wrote: »

I haven't watched the video but most "evil" acts can be attributed to the limited nature of (and competition for) resources in the world (food/water/energy/land/sexual partners/etc) so that's where I believe it comes from.

Watch the video.

Corkfeen

Onesimus wrote: »

Morality cannot be studied physically, they ( morals ) neither exist in DNA, or any part of the physical human and cannot be studied by science at all. Therefore seeing as they do not exist in the physcial, and not in the human, they are laws ( moral laws ) bestowed upon the human from something supernatural.

By the way if there were no God, there would be no Atheists. So. . . how do you know if there were no humans there would be no good or evil seeing as I have demonstrated that morality is invisible, we are aware of them, but morality does not belong to our physical bodies at all. How do you know this then with all of that said, that good and evil would not exist if the human did not exist?

A rather awful argument, beliefs in gods are hardly new, just ask Odin. But a disbelief in a god does not prove its existence.

Human morality can be studied through the likes of psychology. Our behaviour tends to be defined by our environment,the period of time which we live in and our brain's development. I live by a simple code where I attempt to avoid doing things that would harm people. However you would be under the belief that any sexual acts that aren't for the purposes of procreation are immoral. Neither of these are universal beliefs so are in effect subjective.

Society progresses and attempts to refine what is right and wrong. But any objective morality that it attempts to form is in itself a social system created by man rather than something that is truly objective.

Onesimus

Onesimus wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApVYpBwXWLk

What do you think of this short 5 minute explanation?

Watch the whole thing, I thought it was very interesting.

Lol, this is an awful, dishonest, emotionally manipulative, fallacious series of arguments that make ridiculous assumptions, laughable strawmen and fail on the face of them.

I also like how he says that slavery was never acceptable... except when God found it acceptable in the bible.

strobe

Onesimus wrote: »

Could you give me an example of a subjective morality? I am assuming that this means, what is right for you is right for you, and what is right for me is right for me even though it is contrary to whats right for you?

Is that subjective morality?

Broadly, yeah.

Well, I'm no authority on this stuff or anything, but near as I can gather, the difference between moral objectivity and moral subjectivity would be moral objectivity is moral realism, where as moral subjectivity is 'anti-realism'. So a objective moralist that believes stealing is immoral believes that the statement 'stealing is wrong' is true due to objective features of the world and has nothing to do with what anyone believes to be true. Where as a moral subjectivist believes "stealing is wrong" can be true, but the sentence describes what people believe and isn't based on anything objective.

I'd be a moral nihilist personally if you're interested, which means that I believe nothing is intrinsically right or wrong. When I say "murder is wrong", it's just a shorthand phrase I use to that means "I really rather dislike murder and wish people wouldn't do it", but don't actually believe it to be 'wrong' as such, as in 'evil' and so the words 'good' and 'evil' would be fairly meaningless to me when used in relation to morals... ehh... which I don't think exist... kind of... at least I don't believe any moral statements of any kind are true or false... or maybe that they are all false... if those two things are different...

All this stuff confuses the crap out of me to be honest, which is why I think I find it so fascinating.

Nervous Wreck

Onesimus wrote: »

Morality cannot be studied physically, they ( morals ) neither exist in DNA, or any part of the physical human and cannot be studied by science at all. Therefore seeing as they do not exist in the physcial, and not in the human, they are laws ( moral laws ) bestowed upon the human from something supernatural.

Morality is an idea, not a law.

Onesimus

Onesimus wrote: »

By the way if there were no God, there would be no Atheists.

Just like how because there's no such thing as three headed fire breathing unicorns, there's no on who doesn't believe in them...

This statement makes no sense....

Onesimus

Corkfeen wrote: »

A rather awful argument, beliefs in gods are hardly new, just ask Odin. But a disbelief in a god does not prove its existence.

Human morality can be studied through the likes of psychology. Our behaviour tends to be defined by our environment,the period of time which we live in and our brain's development. I live by a simple code where I attempt to avoid doing things that would harm people. However you would be under the belief that any sexual acts that aren't for the purposes of procreation are immoral. Neither of these are universal beliefs so are in effect subjective.

Society progresses and attempts to refine what is right and wrong. But any objective morality that it attempts to form is in itself a social system created by man rather than something that is truly objective.

Corkfeen, ask any psychiatrist, Morality is invisible and cannot be studied physcially, neither can human thoughts/mind. Therefore Atheists believe in something invisible. But if it is not part of physical human nature and lives apart from the human body, then where does it come from? If it cannot be studied in the physcial realm at all?

Two atheist philosphers ( I seriously can't remember their names ) really dislike the atheistic books by hitchens and dawkins etc because they are embarrassed by the fact that the real serious intellectuals ( not bible bashers like hitchens ) like themselves and Christian intellectuals as well both know that morality is invisible and that atheists cannot account for the human mind or morality and know it is not part of the physical human nature. But free will being as strong as it is and as stubborn as it gets, these great intellectuals after all of this simply don't WANT to believe in God. It is not a matter or proof or evidence, its a matter of not wanting to believe or wanting to believe.

We can talk about moral absolutes and non-moral absolutes until the cows come home and scream MOOOOO. But before all this, where does the invisible human/mind or morality come from at all if not from the physical? Then we can discuss objective and subjective morality.

Extinction

Onesimus wrote: »

By the way if there were no God, there would be no Atheists.

There is no God and I am an atheist.

Sycopat

Onesimus wrote: »

Morality cannot be studied physically, they ( morals ) neither exist in DNA, or any part of the physical human and cannot be studied by science at all. Therefore seeing as they do not exist in the physcial, and not in the human, they are laws ( moral laws ) bestowed upon the human from something supernatural.

That is your completely subjective belief. I think it's safe to say it's not shared here. I personally believe that morals are an individuals blend of socially and societally imprinted behaviours and ethics, as well as that set of personal principles arrived at through thought and contemplation on ethical or 'moral' quandaries. I can't speak for anyone else.

By the way if there were no God, there would be no Atheists.

If there was a god why would he make me an atheist?

I know it's a ricky gervais quote, but I'm pretty serious. Or I would be if I weren't wary of how off topic that discussion might go.

So. . . how do you know if there were no humans there would be no good or evil seeing as I have demonstrated that morality is invisible, we are aware of them, but morality does not belong to our physical bodies at all.

You demonstrated nothing. You claimed morals were supernatural, but you demonstrated nothing.

How do you know this then with all of that said, that good and evil would not exist if the human did not exist?

Because they are concepts invented by humans to describe the relative value of human behaviour. It's kind of hard to describe human behaviour in the absence of humans.

Michael Nugent

Onesimus wrote: »

By the way if there were no God, there would be no Atheists.

There are no gods, and there are atheists.

If there were any gods, there would be fewer atheists.

Onesimus

Extinction wrote: »

There is no God and I am an atheist.

The post of a runaway who has been reduced to ( like michael nugent and some others here ) criticising peoples arguments rather than addressing the posts and topic.

shanered

Its all individual perception.

Onesimus

Sycopat wrote: »

That is your completely subjective belief. I think it's safe to say it's not shared here. I personally believe that morals are an individuals blend of socially and societally imprinted behaviours and ethics, as well as that set of personal principles arrived at through thought and contemplation on ethical or 'moral' quandaries. I can't speak for anyone else.




If there was a god why would he make me an atheist?

I know it's a ricky gervais quote, but I'm pretty serious. Or I would be if I weren't wary of how off topic that discussion might go.




You demonstrated nothing. You claimed morals were supernatural, but you demonstrated nothing.




Because they are concepts invented by humans to describe the relative value of human behaviour. It's kind of hard to describe human behaviour in the absence of humans.

Syco. How can morals come from human beings when they do not exist in the human being at all? they are not physical? how can humans invent something ( morals ) that are invisible and not even part of their physcial nature?

Extinction

Onesimus wrote: »

The post of a runaway who has been reduced to ( like michael nugent and some others here ) criticising peoples arguments rather than addressing the posts and topic.

Where have I criticised anyones argument? I have addressed the post and the topic but let me say it one more time, Good and evil don't come from anywhere, they are words used to describe human behaviour.

Onesimus

Onesimus wrote: »

Corkfeen, ask any psychiatrist, Morality is invisible and cannot be studied physcially, neither can human thoughts/mind. Therefore Atheists believe in something invisible. But if it is not part of physical human nature and lives apart from the human body, then where does it come from? If it cannot be studied in the physcial realm at all?

Your premise fails on the outset. We can study human thoughts and mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology

Simply because they cannot yet provide all of the answers you might demand, it does not follow that the can never provide those answer at some point.


Can we also assume that taste in music is also from god as it is also "invisible" in the same way that morality is?

Corkfeen

Onesimus wrote: »

Corkfeen, ask any psychiatrist, Morality is invisible and cannot be studied physcially, neither can human thoughts/mind. Therefore Atheists believe in something invisible. But if it is not part of physical human nature and lives apart from the human body, then where does it come from? If it cannot be studied in the physcial realm at all?

Two atheist philosphers ( I seriously can't remember their names ) really dislike the atheistic books by hitchens and dawkins etc because they are embarrassed by the fact that the real serious intellectuals ( not bible bashers like hitchens ) like themselves and Christian intellectuals as well both know that morality is invisible and that atheists cannot account for the human mind or morality and know it is not part of the physical human nature. But free will being as strong as it is and as stubborn as it gets, these great intellectuals after all of this simply don't WANT to believe in God. It is not a matter or proof or evidence, its a matter of not wanting to believe or wanting to believe.

We can talk about moral absolutes and non-moral absolutes until the cows come home and scream MOOOOO. But before all this, where does the invisible human/mind or morality come from at all if not from the physical? Then we can discuss objective and subjective morality.

I know you don't agree with Dawkins or Hitchens but they are very much in the category of 'real serious intellectuals', they just don't fit your world view..... Psychology is classified as studying the mind and human behaviour, defining what we believe to be moral is human behaviour(instead of saying 'see, god did it!'). For example, many things that would be considered to be immoral now would have been considered to be perfectly fine thousands(or even decades ago) of years ago.

It appears that you're here to preach more than discuss......

Onesimus

Michael Nugent wrote: »

There are no gods, and there are atheists.

If there were any gods, there would be fewer atheists.

I guess you've run a worldwide survey on how many atheists there are huh?

strobe

Just to bring you back to this if I could Onesimus? Could you attempt to put forward your(a) argument that objective morality exists?

Onesimus

Corkfeen wrote: »

I know you don't agree with Dawkins or Hitchens but they are very much in the category of 'real serious intellectuals', they just don't fit your world view..... Psychology is classified as studying the mind and human behaviour, defining what we believe to be moral is human behaviour(instead of saying 'see, god did it!'). For example, many things that would be considered to be immoral now would have been considered to be perfectly fine thousands(or even decades ago) of years ago.

It appears that you're here to preach more than discuss......

*sigh*. Corkfeen, yes one can study someones behaviour, but human thoughts and morality does not exist in our ''physical'' make up. Every big Atheist in the ivory tower knows this. Bigger intellectuals than dawkins and hitchens who are just upset with religion and their books are milked and just shyte really.

Let me get back to it. Our very ability to study behaviour and watch how it does this and that is one thing. SEEING THAT BEHAVIOUR with your OWN PHYSICAL EYES is another. Because you can't, its invisible, not even found in the physical body. Every scientist worth his salty taste knows this.

Sycopat

Onesimus wrote: »

Syco. How can morals come from human beings when they do not exist in the human being at all? they are not physical? how can humans invent something ( morals ) that are invisible and not even part of their physcial nature?

I have to assume you understand the idea of a concept, or an idea.

Permit me a small thought exercise, I assure you I'm not taking the piss.

Imagine a dragon. Seriously, think about a dragon for a minute. You know what a dragon is, I don't need to describe it to you, you can picture hundreds in your head no doubt. Ones you've seen in movies, ones that live only in your imagination.

But dragons don't exist. Humans invented them. They are 'invisible' and not part of physical nature.

Morals are like dragons, you've seen some written down (drawn in the case of dragons) but there are many variations on the theme, some already written or drawn, some remain only in our heads. They can vary wildly between cultures, and between individuals. But they were never physically real, except for when people tried to make them real by carving them in stone or wood, or writing them down, or telling them as stories to their children.

Corkfeen

Onesimus wrote: »

*sigh*. Corkfeen, yes one can study someones behaviour, but human thoughts and morality does not exist in our ''physical'' make up. Every big Atheist in the ivory tower knows this. Bigger intellectuals than dawkins and hitchens who are just upset with religion and their books are milked and just shyte really.

Let me get back to it. Our very ability to study behaviour and watch how it does this and that is one thing. SEEING THAT BEHAVIOUR with your OWN PHYSICAL EYES is another. Because you can't, its invisible, not even found in the physical body. Every scientist worth his salty taste knows this.

Hitchens has plenty of writings outside of religion(and was acclaimed for that work) and Dawkins was a highly respected biologist prior to 'The God Delusion' so not exactly centered primarily around religion. I've read the rest of what you've written and it just seems to be incoherent rambling more than anything else. Can you make an actual argument for an objective morality or is it just going to be a rant?

Onesimus

Sycopat wrote: »

I have to assume you understand the idea of a concept, or an idea.

Permit me a small thought exercise, I assure you I'm not taking the piss.

Imagine a dragon. Seriously, think about a dragon for a minute. You know what a dragon is, I don't need to describe it to you, you can picture hundreds in your head no doubt. Ones you've seen in movies, ones that live only in your imagination.

But dragons don't exist. Humans invented them. They are 'invisible' and not part of physical nature.

Morals are like dragons, you've seen some written down (drawn in the case of dragons) but there are many variations on the theme, some already written or drawn, some remain only in our heads. They can vary wildly between cultures, and between individuals. But they were never physically real, except for when people tried to make them real by carving them in stone or wood, or writing them down, or telling them as stories to their children.

You seem to think that the humans ability to imagine a Dragon is somehow in comparison with morals that are written within us.

But the very mind itself is invisible. Scientists are unable to detect physcially what it is that allows a human to actually imagine a dragon. Its not physical. The human mind can not be accounted for physcially. We are therefore aware of something ( and believe in ) something invisible when it comes to the human mind/morals. The very mind itself which is invisible exists apart from the human body, because it cannot be there for it cannot been SEEN physcially.

the very ability we have to study human behaviour cannot be seen physically.

Its a fact, not fiction. Anyone trying to argue against the fact that we cannot account for these things physcially would be seen as mad by the scientific crowd and the heavyweight atheist philosophers.

Onesimus

Onesimus wrote: »

*sigh*. Corkfeen, yes one can study someones behaviour, but human thoughts and morality does not exist in our ''physical'' make up. Every big Atheist in the ivory tower knows this. Bigger intellectuals than dawkins and hitchens who are just upset with religion and their books are milked and just shyte really.

Let me get back to it. Our very ability to study behaviour and watch how it does this and that is one thing. SEEING THAT BEHAVIOUR with your OWN PHYSICAL EYES is another. Because you can't, its invisible, not even found in the physical body. Every scientist worth his salty taste knows this.

But we can see were thoughts come from. It's called neuroscience.

Onesimus

Corkfeen wrote: »

Hitchens has plenty of writings outside of religion(and was acclaimed for that work) and Dawkins was a highly respected biologist prior to 'The God Delusion' so not exactly centered primarily around religion. I've read the rest of what you've written and it just seems to be incoherent rambling more than anything else. Can you make an actual argument for an objective morality or is it just going to be a rant?

Why is everyone trying to get me to make an argument for objective reality? First we need to settle the argument that atheists will accept that they are aware and do believe in the invisible mind or behaviour and that it is not part of the human physical make-up. Because many heavyweight atheistic philosophers do.

Corkfeen

King Mob wrote: »

But we can see were thoughts come from. It's called neuroscience.

I think Onesimus expects live video playback of the human thought processes. Otherwise t'is just invisible ****e that god put there.....

Sycopat

Onesimus wrote: »

You seem to think that the humans ability to imagine a Dragon is somehow in comparison with morals that are written within us.

But the very mind itself is invisible. Scientists are unable to detect physcially what it is that allows a human to actually imagine a dragon. Its not physical. The human mind can not be accounted for physcially. We are therefore aware of something ( and believe in ) something invisible when it comes to the human mind/morals. The very mind itself which is invisible exists apart from the human body, because it cannot be there for it cannot been SEEN physcially.

the very ability we have to study human behaviour cannot be seen physically.

Its a fact, not fiction. Anyone trying to argue against the fact that we cannot account for these things physcially would be seen as mad by the scientific crowd and the heavyweight atheist philosophers.

Who says morals are written within us?

You seem unable to seperate the mind from morals, but they are not one and the same thing. We can't explain the mind fully, physically, yet, nor have I made any attempt to. It's considered an emergent property of the brain and there is a lot we don't know (And we can damage the mind by causing damage to the brain, and fix some minor forms of damage to the mind by treating the brain with chemicals) but we can observe human behaviour, and listen to other humans spoken thoughts and we can this way observe that different people have different morals.

I'm not trying to account for the physicality of morals, because I don't believe morals are physical. That argument makes no difference to me, it has no bearing whatsoever on my argument because I believe morals are conceptual and subjective. That's why I compared them to dragons. (Also because dragons, like morals, exist in most cultures but are very different and tend to reflect both social and individual tastes wherever found, but I guess that was unappreciated.)

Onesimus

Science and religion both believe and understand that the mind and the body are poles apart. One is physical ( the body ) and the other abstract ( the mind ). In other words the mind cannot be accounted for scientifically.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_in_a_human_body_is_the_mind_located

Of course it's hard for many here to accept this fact. It has never been proven ever that the mind is part of the physical body. Because it isn't. We are aware of and believe in something invisible.

Sycopat

Onesimus wrote: »

Science and religion both believe and understand that the mind and the body are poles apart. One is physical ( the body ) and the other abstract ( the mind ). In other words the mind cannot be accounted for scientifically.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_in_a_human_body_is_the_mind_located

Of course it's hard for many here to accept this fact. It has never been proven ever that the mind is part of the physical body. Because it isn't. We are aware of and believe in something invisible.

It's not hard to accept at all, other than the observed disruption of the mind by various physical interventions and vice-versa (Brain damage and anti-depression meds) there is a lot we don't understand about the mind.

But you've made no argument for why you think morality is innate and objective.

Sofaspud

Morality is a consequence of empathy. A person with morals simply wouldn't want to physically or emotionally harm another, as they can understand the negative feelings involved.

There, morality explained.

Onesimus

Sycopat wrote: »

It's not hard to accept at all, other than the observed disruption of the mind by various physical interventions and vice-versa (Brain damage and anti-depression meds) there is a lot we don't understand about the mind.

But you've made no argument for why you think morality is innate and objective.

If you accept that then where does the mind come from? If not from the human physical body and not from the physical earth and not from the physical universe, then where does it come from? This abstract mind atheists cannot account for.Could it not cross the atheist mind ( who believe only in the physical ) that this invisible mind of ours was given to us by an invisible but very real supernatural being?.

But we are told that ''one day will be able to know'' wow, in saying that your no different than mystic meg and all those charlatans you make fun of and deride here on your forum for being delusional.

Mardy Bum

Onesimus wrote: »

Science and religion both believe and understand that the mind and the body are poles apart. One is physical ( the body ) and the other abstract ( the mind ). In other words the mind cannot be accounted for scientifically.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_in_a_human_body_is_the_mind_located

Of course it's hard for many here to accept this fact. It has never been proven ever that the mind is part of the physical body. Because it isn't. We are aware of and believe in something invisible.

Posters could try to bring you round to their view a hundred times over Onesimus but as you probably know yourself you are not going to change your mind as a result of what someone says on boards so maybe go one better and do a bit of background reading regarding the subject.
You have very little background knowledge acquired and it shows in your comments. If you actually want to learn something about the mind read Steven Pinker's rather excellent book How the Mind Works. Follow that up with another in his collection called The Blank Slate.

If you have managed that you should try Evolutionary Psychology: A New Science of the Mind by David Buss, a really enlightening read. Now if you have come that far you might as well read Robert Wrights The Moral Animal: Why we are the way we are. I guarantee you will have completely changed your views regarding morality at this stage. Finally now that you are on Wright you should read The Evolution of God.

You may just change your world view or you won't read them at all and retain the same world view.

Sycopat

Onesimus wrote: »

If you accept that then where does the mind come from? If not from the human physical body and not from the physical earth and not from the physical universe, then where does it come from? This abstract mind atheists cannot account for.Could it not cross the atheist mind ( who believe only in the physical ) that this invisible mind of ours was given to us by an invisible but very real supernatural being?.

But we are told that ''one day will be able to know'' wow, in saying that your no different than mystic meg and all those charlatans you make fun of and deride here on your forum for being delusional.

It's probably an emergent property of the brain, as described already, based on current observations. Why should I assume the supernatural when there is so much of the natural left to explore?

Also, admitting we don't know the answer to a question yet is very different to claiming magical powers.

But all that is of course, completely off topic.

Do you actually have an argument for innate objective morality? Or are you just hoping someone is going to argue with you about the nature of the mind?

Sarky

Sycopat wrote: »

It's probably an emergent property of the brain, as described already, based on current observations.

Based on my own experiences, including a taking wide range of various medications from antibiotics to sleep enhancers to antidepressants to steroids to alcohol, and the similar experiences of several friends, not to mention all the research I've read and done on systems that can generate emergent processes, I'd bet good money on this being the case. It's certainly the way all the evidence found so far is pointing.

Unless of course antibiotics, sleep enhancers, antidepressants and alcohol are magical and contain something intangible that can somehow reach this invisible separate mind of Onesimus'. Those tricksy big pharma corporations, eh? They never said ritual prayer or pixie dust in the ingredients...

Onesimus

Onesimus wrote: »

Of course it's hard for many here to accept this fact. It has never been proven ever that the mind is part of the physical body. Because it isn't. We are aware of and believe in something invisible.

How do you know it isn't?
You are assuming this premise while ignore several fields of science for no good reason beyond that you prefer to believe your premise.

How do you know for certain that the mind is supernatural other than you do not understand how it might be natural?

Or should we just accept an argument from ignorance as the basis for your logic?

Mark Hamill

Onesimus wrote: »

If you accept that then where does the mind come from? If not from the human physical body ...

It comes from the human physical body. The mind is in the brain. Don't believe me? Go ask your doctor for a lobotomy and see how much of your mind remains. We actually have a pretty good idea of where the different aspects of the mind sit in the human brain (emotions, spatial reasoning, language etc.) , what we lack is complete understanding of how they function and interact (although the existence of various mood altering drugs show that we can alter them).