ISAW wrote: » Penn wrote: » How do you think language evolved? Why do you think there are so many different languages in the world? As humanity evolved, the way we communicated over time became more complex and we could create more sounds and syllables to verbalise what we wanted to say. This became language, and the reason there are so many different languages was because people in each region chose different sounds to verbalise what they wanted to say. Again, a slow process over many generations. Language is a complicated subject and i really would prefer not to go there. suffice it to say the primary function of languages isnt communication. But i asked about judgement, morals, values. where are your genetic "building blocks" or social "atoms" or "force laws" which show how values are made or evolve?
Penn wrote: » How do you think language evolved? Why do you think there are so many different languages in the world? As humanity evolved, the way we communicated over time became more complex and we could create more sounds and syllables to verbalise what we wanted to say. This became language, and the reason there are so many different languages was because people in each region chose different sounds to verbalise what they wanted to say. Again, a slow process over many generations.
Penn wrote: » How is something like language different to morals?
It's something which necessarily evolved in our species over time. It's not like suddenly one human was born with a "judgement atom" and said to another human "Hey, don't do that. That's bad". ,
It evolved not as a genetic thing, but more so as something which is passed on through generations.
Something we're taught, something we learn from others and eventually have to judge for ourselves. As we learnt to think more, not purely on instinct, we learnt to judge situations.
If you're asking me to give you chemical equations or a diagram comparing the brain of an early human with a modern human showing where morality is located. I can't do that. I work in the construction industry. I'm far from an expert. However, just because I don't know, doesn't mean the answer is God.
It's the same thing with the Big Bang argument and "What came before the Big Bang? It must be God". Just because we don't know the answer (and I'm not saying people don't know the answers to this, I'm just saying I'm a random dude on the Internet who isn't an expert in any of this; as are you as far as I'm concerned), but just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean the answer is God.
Sonics2k wrote: » I'm sorry, but no. That's a belief. Christians think Jesus rose from the dead, there is absolutely nothing other than the Bible, written some hundred years after his death as 'proof' of this.
ISAW wrote: » So the mind doesnt exist as a gestalt entity? Where is the judgement stored
ISAW wrote: » Language is a complicated subject and i really would prefer not to go there. suffice it to say the primary function of languages isnt communication.
ISAW wrote: » So it is NOT LIKE genetics. You just admitted that.
philologos wrote: » You're practising the art of making assumptions before you examine the evidence. What I am suggesting is looking at how humans operate in ethical dilemmas, and then assess what that tells us about reality. Humans for the most part, don't say when they are wronged that their morality could be wrong and that the wrongdoers morality could be right. Rather they argue that they have been objectively wronged. Humans for the most part have an innate sense of morality, it isn't something that's generally conjured up in the mind. Humans also have the uncanny ability to use dishonesty to conceal, hide, or distort the truth in order to do what is wrong. Ultimately, there's still the awareness even during wrongdoing that it is indeed wrongdoing. The same applies at an international level countries don't claim that when one country is being attacked by another without basis and with indiscriminate human rights violations that their "subjective morality" could be wrong. The universal nature of human rights, the very idea that they are inalienable is based on the concept that human rights aren't ours to give, and ours to take away. Ergo, whose are they? "Subjective morality" as a concept to me is just not real. Whenever I hear atheists arguing for it on this forum, something sinks within me. It's the most unconvincing argument that one can pose for atheism.
philologos wrote: » Does it? Ultimately, I think God formed the conscience, but I think people across the world irrespective of creed follow by muchly similar ethical standards in day to day existence.
philologos wrote: » I agree it would. For the atheist, morality is subjective because there's not a hope that there is any objective standard external to us. That's a gonner as a solution to the problem. For the Christian the refreshing thing is, it isn't based on what is in my mind. Ultimately if God exists, He Himself can speak, and indeed has through His word. If God hadn't spoke, I'd be much in the same position as you are concerning this. Since God as Christians see it has spoken, we have access to the objective truth of reality and aim to live on that basis.
philologos wrote: » I don't see what my decision to follow Jesus which I concede is subjective has to do with arguing against objective morality which I'm claiming that all men base their ethical behaviour in some way or another on.
ISAW wrote: » i missed that bit! what writings do you hgave from socrates or Alexander - none And anyth_ing attributed to them is written il bet over 300 not 100 years after them. But i dont see you claiming you can trust the history. why do you apply a different standard of evidence to jesus?
PDN wrote: » So, which bit of the Bible are you claiming was written after 130 AD?
Penn wrote: » Could you point out where I said it was like genetics? I'm pretty sure I said "It evolved like everything else evolves: slowly over a long period of time". I don't believe I claimed it was exactly like genetics.
Again, we aren't born with morality in the same way that we aren't born with language. It's what we learn from parents and society.
If I had a child now and gave it up for adoption and a Chinese couple adopted it, that child would be speaking Chinese and would have morals based on the parents who adopted it rather than the morals of the biological parents.
ISAW; Which leads us back to some things being always wrong. But how can they be if people chose to change things and dont accept some universal wrongs?
ISAW wrote: » Notice the word "like" in "It evolved like everything else evolves" So species evolving slowly over a long period of time are nothing to do with genetics? clearly you equated social "evolution" and biological evolution. If you are prepared to admit that society cant be equated with genetics now then fine. In which case society does not "evolve" LIKE genetics does it?
ISAW wrote: » Stephen Pinker Noam Chomsky and others would beg to differ and that instinct and capacity for language is hardwired though shaped by environment.
ISAW wrote: » Taking "do as your parents teach" can lead to dangerous territory. what iof your parents are Nazis? what if they believe "there is no god" should be a central tenet of society? Every society that tried it in the past murdered people by the newtime.
ISAW wrote: » Which leads us back to some things being always wrong. But how can they be if people chose to change things and dont accept some universal wrongs?
ISAW wrote: » Not necessarily. If you had a time machine and had a cave man's child they could grow up as one of your family. *But eventually you would go back so far that they would not be human and could not grow up as a human even if they could bear children with humans. ie they would be biologically human but something would be missing.
ISAW wrote: » the points are 1 Society while made of people isnt operating under the same scientific rules as biologuy the word "evolution" is misused when used like this. 2 Individually Humans are more than their biology The idea of "mind " or "spirit" or "soul" or gestalt entities are part of this
Sonics2k wrote: » Apologies PDN, I missed your comment. The estimated time that the New Testament was written between 70AD and 150AD, so I put it down as an average of 100 years. A fair compromise really.
PDN wrote: » No, not a fair compromise at all. Virtually all scholars are agreed that the Four Gospels were written within 50 years of Christ's death (with some dating them much earlier). Other New Testament books (such as Galatians and 1 Corinthians) were written within 25 years of Christ's death. The 100 year estimate applies only to one or two books (such as 2 Peter) and represents the extreme late end of a range of estimates from that start at 70AD.
marienbad wrote: » The real issue in not if it was 50 years or 100 years , but the fact that there are no contemporaenous accounts at all- none.
And this for a series of events that went on over a number of years. And not just any events but quite extraordinary ones. Surely any one of those miracles would have been the talk of the age never mind a whole series. And that is before we even get to the resurrection .Not even accounts disputing those events which is the least one could expect.
ISAW wrote: » LOL. so they should have written the history before it happened rather than after? And where are the contemporaneous accounts of Socrates or Alexander the Great? I dont see you saying they didnt exist though?
ISAW wrote: » And the ones for Alexander and Socrates are???
Wh1stler wrote: » Where does a 13 amp fuse store the information that allows it to judge when its limit has been exceeded? Or not exceeded?
marienbad wrote: » The real issue in not if it was 50 years or 100 years , but the fact that there are no contemporaenous accounts at all- none. And this for a series of events that went on over a number of years. And not just any events but quite extraordinary ones. Surely any one of those miracles would have been the talk of the age never mind a whole series. And that is before we even get to the resurrection .Not even accounts disputing those events which is the least one could expect. Does that not trouble anyone ?
Sonics2k wrote: » You don't know what contemporary means, do you? Go google it and come back.
I've already provided you with ones for Socrates, eg Plato.
As for Alexander, well the man did rule most of the 'known' world for sometime, and the Persians certainly have a lot to say about him. Might I suggest you go and pick up a history book, before continuing this conversation.
Sonics2k wrote: » No you can't damn well suggest that's akin to being mentioned in the Bible. You're just arguing for the sake of it now. We have historical record, fact, reactions and influences of both these men from first hand sources, including the sites of old battles that Alexander took part.
We also have the Persian records of battles against Alexander!
We have the full records of both men's existence. But once again I feel the need to say this.
No-one has claimed they had supernatural powers since their death, or invented stories of 'god' like abilities, such as resurrection of the dead, changing water to wine and so on.
The objective of this paper is to show that Alexander the Great did in fact believe that he was more than an ordinary man: that Alexander believed that he was divine.
Sonics2k wrote: » No you can't damn well suggest that's akin to being mentioned in the Bible. You're just arguing for the sake of it now. We have historical record, fact, reactions and influences of both these men from first hand sources, including the sites of old battles that Alexander took part. We also have the Persian records of battles against Alexander! We have the full records of both men's existence. But once again I feel the need to say this. No-one has claimed they had supernatural powers since their death, or invented stories of 'god' like abilities, such as resurrection of the dead, changing water to wine and so on.
marienbad wrote: » You are very fond of this argument ISAW, how about I give you a different figure for comparision- The Emperor Tiberius. After all he was contemporaneous with Jesus and also worshipped as a God . Would you care to compare the evidence for the existance of Jesus with that of Tiberius ?
ISAW wrote: » 13 Amp fuses behave according to Ohms Law. are you seriously claiming human beings are just following laws of physics and are only a representation of their programming?
ISAW wrote: » who wrote the programme by the way?
ISAW wrote: » Or did it just came about by accident?
ISAW wrote: » Not particularly. I picked socrates and Alexander because they are two hugely famous people from history. i dont see why they are something we should avoid. Unless of course you think the argument they didnt exist is stronger than that for Jesus existing.
