Intelligent Design

Upright Biped Schools Ed George

Spread the love

Everything below is from a comment posted by UB:

Ed at 34,

[re: Ed on telling the truth]
It is just one of the rules we have to follow if we want to be welcome in society. If I chose to live by myself in a cabin in the hills I would have no obligation to be honest to the rare person that stumbled upon me.

Yes, you’ve been very concise on this feature of your belief system, and we understand you. If you live in a society then you have to tell the truth as a moral obligation to the consensus of that society (who collectively believe that people should tell the truth). But if you live out on your own, then you are your own consensus, and as you clearly say, you ”have no obligation” to tell the truth to some poor sap who might happen upon you.

You’ve made yourself perfectly clear on this.

And if that poor sap who happens to come upon you on your hill also happens to be of the fairer variety, with breasts and a vagina … well tough shit, eh Ed?

I’ve asked you repeatedly if a woman being raped needed the consensus of a group in order to know for certain that the brutalization she feels is actually valid. That is certainly the belief you seem to espouse here. You promote this as the advanced and enlightened view of human life, and judging by your insistence, you apparently think others should follow your lead on the matter, particularly those god-fearers around you who still mistakenly believe that raping a woman is an immoral act whether or not there is even one other ‘effing human being on the entire surface of planet who thinks so.

You’ve understandably refused to answer my question, of course, but you’ve certainly shed some light on the matter now. Whatever happens to that curvy sap who happens upon your hill, she can’t really say that what’s happening to her is “wrong”, per se, she’ll just have to keep in mind that what’s happening to her literally goes with the territory, and in this instance, she was merely on the “wrong” territory. As you say, there is no moral dilemma on your part, having acted on your decision. It’s just a geographic misfortune on her part. Hell, it could even be sheer dumb luck.

But you view this whole thing as a trick question, a “loaded question” as you called it. We all know that you aren’t the type of man so hardened of heart that you would actually ever rape a woman (regardless of when and where she happens upon you). It’s just that you are the type who is hardened enough to think that you decide if it is wrong for her to be raped. It’s a deformity of reason, but I see you come here daily to sell it in public — and you seem to really enjoy it, with that special kind of superior arrogance: Does a woman being raped need the consensus of society in order to know for certain that the brutalization she feels is valid. Yes she does, but a man living by himself on a hill outside society can rape her without any moral obligation whatsoever.

66 Replies to “Upright Biped Schools Ed George

  1. 1
    john_a_designer says:

    I don’t have a problem with Ed being a moral subjectivist. The problem is when he tries to push his subjectivism on everyone else. If there are no moral obligations there is no obligation on my or anyone else part to even consider what he is asserting (baseless assertions are not arguments.) In other words, whatever he is trying to argue is blatantly self-refuting.

    I made the following comment some time ago on another thread. It is worth repeating here:

    Without a transcendent standard for interpersonal moral obligations there is no basis for universal human rights. Nevertheless, the secular progressive left, which has no transcendent basis for morality, ethics or human rights because it is rooted in a mindless naturalistic metaphysic, has illegitimately co-opted the idea of human rights to push its perverted political agenda of so-called social justice. But how can someone’s (or anyone’s) subjective opinion of right and wrong become the basis of universal human rights?

    Many of our regular interlocutors, like Ed, have tried to argue that moral values are in fact subjective. But again, subjective values do not carry any kind of interpersonal moral obligation. They are your values not mine. They are simply arbitrary personal preferences. Why should I be obligated to even respect your personal opinion? How can one have something like universal human rights based on arbitrary subjective personal preferences? And what good is any kind of moral system if moral obligations are not real and binding?

    The U.S. founding fathers appear to have understood that ideologically motivated groups like the social justice warrior left (so-called factions) would try to subvert the political process. This is one reason why they made it difficult to amend the U.S. Constitution. For example, the first 10 amendments to the constitution, which were passed very quickly, (the so-called Bill of Rights) required a 2/3 vote in each house of congress as well as approval of ¾ of state legislatures. It appears the founders thought this would prevent a small vocal faction from subverting the will of the people. However, apparently they didn’t notice the loophole in article III that allowed Supreme Court judges to appropriate more power than was constitutionally granted to them. That’s the loophole that the SJW left has been able to exploit and is why they have used the courts to push their agenda. You don’t need to convince an overwhelming majority of people you are right– you don’t even need to convince a majority. All you need is to convince are a few sympathetic judges who share your “enlightened” group think. The problem is that is not representative or small-r republican government. That’s an oligarchy. An oligarchy is one of the types of government that takes away rights.

    Moral subjectivism provides no basis to create a broad based consensus which is necessary to protect fundamental human rights.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Judicial activism, i.e. legislating from the bench by the radical left, is indeed a looming threat to our republican democracy of representative government, but it need not be fatal. Whilst Congress should be the one to most directly challenge the judicial branch’s overreach into it’s legislative territory, historically it has been the executive branch that has curtailed judicial overreach.

    Reining In Judicial Supremacists
    Excerpt: Presidents and members of Congress are not constitutional eunuchs who are impotent to resist judicial activism. The Constitution equips them with a system of checks and balances that can be applied to reign in those who engage in judicial overreach. Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln are examples of two Chief Executives who understood the dangers of judicial activism and who resisted it in their time. Where would America be today if Mr. Lincoln had rolled over in response to the Dred Scott decision?,,,
    In his first inaugural address Mr. Lincoln declared, “The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, …the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
    https://townhall.com/columnists/kenconnor/2015/07/15/reigning-in-judicial-supremacists-n2025295

    And while the executive branch can curtail the judicial branch’s overreach into legislative territory for a time, a more permanent solution needs to originate from Congress itself in that Congress itself has the power within itself to amend the constitution in such a way so as to severely restrict the judicial branch to its original intended role of ‘merely judgement’,

    “the judiciary has neither “force nor will, but merely judgment?”
    Alexander Hamilton – Federalist No. 78

  3. 3
    ET says:

    I don’t have a problem with Ed being a moral subjectivist, either. Ed’s problem is that he is a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing lose and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll.

  4. 4
    asauber says:

    I have a problem with all moral subjectivists in that they are in obvious error. If they were serious thinkers, they wouldn’t be moral subjectivists to begin with.

    Andrew

  5. 5
    john_a_designer says:

    My point at #1 is really very simple: if a moral subjectivist has no basis for moral obligations how am I obligated to trust anything he asserts about morality? On the other hand, if he wants to believe in nonsense that’s his personal prerogative. What he doesn’t have the right to do is cram his nonsense down anyone else’s throat. Doubling down on your unwarranted opinions and beliefs over and over again (being argumentative) is an attempt to cram your beliefs down someone else’s throat.

    This is something I have said on this site several different times before that’s worth repeating again:

    I try to avoid getting involved in discussions or debates with any of our regular interlocutors because I don’t believe they are being intellectually or ethically honest. The logic here is really very basic and straightforward: If there are no true interpersonal moral standards or obligations how can we trust anything anyone says or asserts? I don’t think that we can. To have an honest discussion or debate you need some kind of interpersonal, or “transcendent,” standard of truth and honesty– even if it’s a traditional or some kind of “conventional” standard. Why would I trust somebody else’s subjective standard for honesty and truth when he starts out by arguing there is no standard of truth or honesty?

    In other words, telling the truth and being honest only makes sense if there is an objective standard of truth and honesty. That’s a self-evident truth, therefore, any viable system of morality must be based on the fact that there really is moral truth and moral truth obligates us to be truthful and honest.

  6. 6
    Bob O'H says:

    My point at #1 is really very simple: if a moral subjectivist has no basis for moral obligations how am I obligated to trust anything he asserts about morality?

    You don’t. But then you’re not obligated to trust anything anyone says, even a moral objectivist (after all, they might also be a liar or a hypocrite).

    Of course, you are obligated to trust anything I assert, because I’m a paragon of virtue. 🙂

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    “you are obligated to trust anything I assert, because I’m a paragon of virtue.”

    Though Bob was being flippant, yet thus thinks the secular leftist to himself, and often announces it to the public, though he certainly has no objective moral basis for doing so.

    Just ask Hillary

    “Basket of deplorables”
    https://media.giphy.com/media/BvUvNYd1hK6xG/giphy.gif

  8. 8
    vmahuna says:

    You need to read more History, dudes. Involuntary sex between powerful and/or rich people (both male and female) and powerless prisoners or children was (and is) a standard piece of MANY cultures throughout history. In fact “marriage” is ABOUT giving a specific woman, and her children, the protection (including VIOLENT protection) of a man. Mao Tse-tung, once he’d come to power, slept with a fresh virgin every night. The virgins were sent to Mao by government officials hoping to keep on the good side of the Emperor. One assumes that the deflowered women (girls?) were then shipped home marked “damaged goods” with little chance of landing a husband. Note that the Dominant Culture of Red China found this a PERFECTLY good way to run society, and any uppity father or boy friend who objected was asking to find himself on the wrong end of a bayonet.
    Also note that the PERMANENT pairing of a man and a woman within a man-pack was/is the EXCEPTION to what is now called “shaking up”. The Irish had MANY different kinds of marriage, including a 1 Year Marriage that could be converted into any of several more permanent forms. And even the Bible mentions a setup where an unrelated man fathers children with a woman, but ALL of her children are the responsibility of her BROTHER to provide for. For as the ancient wisdom teaches us, “It is a WISE monkey who knows his Father.” But of course a Mother knows which men are her Brothers, at least as long as Grandma is still alive.
    So ya gotta READ more. And stop focusing on European Christian schools of Ethics and such. It’s a very NARROW and MODERN set of ideas, which may be completely gone within the next century.

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    I’ve asked you repeatedly if a woman being raped needed the consensus of a group in order to know for certain that the brutalization she feels is actually valid

    I’m pretty sure that the victim of rape wouldn’t give a fig about whether the “brutalization” she feels is “valid” or “invalid”. She would just want her suffering to stop.

    I, like everyone else here, would also want it to stop. Why? I should not have to say this but it is because we can imagine her suffering and know that it is not something we would like to experience nor would we want to see it inflicted on anyone else. It’s called empathy and its derived principle of the Golden Rule which, in my view, is more than sufficient grounds for morality.

    It also grounds “moral obligation” very simply: if you don’t rape me, I won’t rape you. The only obligation which has any practical value is one into which parties enter voluntarily.

    Finally, why don’t you answer the question I’ve asked many times before: are you really telling me you wouldn’t know that rape or child abuse or any other atrocity, is morally wrong unless you had been told so by some third party? You are not capable of any independent judgement yourself?

  10. 10
    Ed George says:

    Sev

    Finally, why don’t you answer the question I’ve asked many times before: are you really telling me you wouldn’t know that rape or child abuse or any other atrocity, is morally wrong unless you had been told so by some third party? You are not capable of any independent judgement yourself?

    This is exactly why UB’s question is not worth responding to.

    ET

    I don’t have a problem with Ed being a moral subjectivist, either. Ed’s problem is that he is a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing lose and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll.

    Says the man who has repeatedly called people “ass munching faggots”.

    Barry, my apologies for the language, but I think it is important to know the person they are agreeing with and supporting.

  11. 11

    .

    I’m pretty sure that the victim of rape wouldn’t give a fig about whether the “brutalization” she feels is “valid” or “invalid”. She would just want her suffering to stop.

    What a stupid thing to say. Go talk to a rape survivor, Seversky. It is rarely the pain, it’s the rape.

    I, like everyone else here, would also want it to stop. Why? I should not have to say this but it is because we can imagine her suffering and know that it is not something we would like to experience nor would we want to see it inflicted on anyone else. It’s called empathy and its derived principle of the Golden Rule which, in my view, is more than sufficient grounds for morality.

    In your indignation, you’ve forgotten the actual subject of the comment. The man said his moral landscape is such that moral obligations are set by the consensus of society (you know, the same thing you promote by the compelling and authoritative brand “Consensus Theory”), but that a man living outside that consensus establishes his own obligations, and can do as he wishes – he has “no obligations” unquote.

  12. 12
    Ed George says:

    Sev

    I’m pretty sure that the victim of rape wouldn’t give a fig about whether the “brutalization” she feels is “valid” or “invalid”. She would just want her suffering to stop.

    UB

    What a stupid thing to say. Go talk to a rape survivor, Seversky. It is rarely the pain, it’s the rape.

    How is that in any way a response to what Sev said? I am interested in how “brutalizations” is limited to the perception of physical pain.

  13. 13
    vividbleau says:

    “It also grounds “moral obligation” very simply: if you don’t rape me, I won’t rape you”

    And therefore it follows if you do rape me it is not immoral for me to rape you, more like quicksand than solid ground Bob. Morality is a game of tit for tat!

    Vivid

  14. 14

    .
    Grist for the mill, Ed?

  15. 15
    ET says:

    I don’t have a problem with Ed being a moral subjectivist, either. Ed’s problem is that he is a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing lose and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll.

    Ed George:

    Says the man who has repeatedly called people “ass munching faggots”.

    Thank you, Ed, for the perfect example of “argument by way infant belligerence”. Did your mother teach you that- when all is lost and your butt is exposed, go full-on Tourette’s meltdown syndrome?

    It is very telling that you forgot to mention why I would have done such a thing. That is if you can demonstrate that I did.

    Shall we look to see what YOU have said about Barry, Denyse, kairosfocus and others? Do you not realize that we know that you are a regular member of the evoTARD gossip swamp? And that all you do is spew vile hatred towards myself, Barry, Denyse, upright biped, gpuccio, kairosfocus and others. Are you daft?

    Then you come here in a newly washed sock and act all sanctimonious, like the punk slime that you are, and you really think you are hurting me, somehow? Really?

    Wow.

    Barry, my apologies for the language, but I think it is important to know the person they are agreeing with and supporting.

    And Ed’s cowardly quote-mines are just the vehicle to get that done, by golly.

    Ed’s problem is that he is a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing loser and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll.

    Just keep that in mind when considering what Ed has to say about me. That is all that I ask.

  16. 16
    Ed George says:

    VB

    And therefore it follows if you do rape me it is not immoral for me to rape you, more like quicksand than solid ground Bob. Morality is a game of tit for tat!

    The fact that a significant percentage of pedophiles were sexually abused as kids suggests that this may be the case. Almost sounds like early learning, repetition, reinforcement, indoctrination etc. is responsible for our moral values.

    I believe that there is something objectively true about morality. I think we can all agree that we have something that we call a sense of morality. When the vast majority of us hold the same moral value (don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t deny homosexuals the pleasure of marriage) we feel entitled to oblige others to abide by these values. And, if these values are subjective, we would expect them to change over time and to vary between societies. For example, in the US most believe that it is morally acceptable to use violence to protect property. In most other countries, that is not acceptable.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    seversky:

    It also grounds “moral obligation” very simply: if you don’t rape me, I won’t rape you.

    How many rapes has that prevented? The rapist stopped cuz the potential victim said “Look, if you don’t rape me then I won’t rape you.”

    Finally, why don’t you answer the question I’ve asked many times before: are you really telling me you wouldn’t know that rape or child abuse or any other atrocity, is morally wrong unless you had been told so by some third party? You are not capable of any independent judgement yourself?

    Question-begging. First off, no one had to tell us. That is the thing with self-evident truths and objective morals. If you have to be told then somewhere you were told something wrong and then you went with it. And the fact that you think we need some independent judgement just shows how confused you are about the topic

  18. 18
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    The fact that a significant percentage of pedophiles were sexually abused as kids suggests that this may be the case. Almost sounds like early learning, repetition, reinforcement, indoctrination etc. is responsible for our moral values.

    From your example it looks like the really messed up moral values arise that way.

    Nice own goal.

  19. 19
    Ed George says:

    ET

    From your example it looks like the really messed up moral values arise that way.

    Nice own goal.

    Really? You obviously think that many of my moral values are messed up. I think that many of yours are. Sounds like subjective morality is ruling the world. And, thankfully (in my opinion), more people share my moral values than yours. Otherwise KF wouldn’t always be talking about civilization heading over the cliff, to the rocks below.

  20. 20
    vividbleau says:

    E.G.
    I don’t think anyone disagrees learning, education, etc influence our moral values and in many cases responsible for them. As it relates to the existence of an objective moral standard I say “so what?”

    Vivid

  21. 21
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    Really?

    Perhaps YOU think that child abuse is OK, Ed. Most people would disagree with you

    And, thankfully (in my opinion), more people share my moral values than yours.

    Thankfully and contrary to you, most people say that child abuse is wrong

  22. 22
    Ed George says:

    VB

    As it relates to the existence of an objective moral standard I say “so what?”

    I think most of our disagreement is a disagreement over the definitions of objective and subjective, with respect to morality.

    My definition is that if it relies on early learning, indoctrination, reinforcement, reasoning, predicting consequences, then it is subjective. I see objective as being something that is wrong, independent of all of these. Objective morality may be true, but I just don’t see how you can prove it without pretzel like logic. As KF keeps presenting.

  23. 23
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    My definition is that if it relies on early learning, indoctrination, reinforcement, reasoning, predicting consequences, then it is subjective.

    Total BS. Math relies on that. Is math now subjective? And no one can prove anything to the willfully ignorant, Ed.

    Arguing morals with Ed, a known liar, bluffer, equivocator and coward, is the epitome of futility. One of Ed’s sock posted that all he is interested in is poking us and muddying the waters- it’s over on TSZ under “Acartia”

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    E.G. quotes Seversky.

    Finally, why don’t you answer the question I’ve asked many times before: are you really telling me you wouldn’t know that rape or child abuse or any other atrocity, is morally wrong unless you had been told so by some third party? You are not capable of any independent judgement yourself?

    I had to make sure that it was indeed Seversky, a Darwinian atheist, that had asked that question because that is the same exact type of question that a Theist would ask of an moral subjectivist, (i.e. an atheistic materialist), in regards to our innate moral intuition. i.e. “Just how in blue blazes does Seversky ‘intuitively know’ that empathy and the golden rule are good and that a woman being raped is evil?” Because of his atheistic materialism, Seversky simply has no foundation to intuitively know that empathy and the golden rule are good and that a woman being raped is evil.

    Don’t take my word for it, biologist Randy Thornhill and the anthropologist Craig T. Palmer, both Darwinian atheists. wrote a book arguing that rape is ‘natural’ and that it is not a pathology, i.e. arguing that rape is not inherently wrong!.

    Nancy Pearcey: What Phillip Johnson’s Wedge Of Truth Made Clear – November 17, 2019
    Excerpt: Shortly after Johnson finished his book, his forewarnings were confirmed by the appearance of a book titled The Natural History of Rape, which argued that, biologically speaking, rape is not a pathology; instead, it is an evolutionary strategy for maximizing reproductive success: In other words, if candy and flowers don’t do the trick, some men may resort to coercion to fulfill the reproductive imperative. The book calls rape “a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage,” akin to “the leopard’s spots and the giraffe’s elongated neck.”
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nancy-pearcey-what-phillip-johnsons-wedge-of-truth-made-clear/

    Darwinian materialism simply gives Seversky no foundation in which he can argue that empathy and the golden rule are always good and that a woman being raped is always evil. As an atheistic materialists, all he can possibly have as a foundation for ethics is “nothing but pitiless indifference.”

    “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
    Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

    Thus Seversky himself, whether he even realizes it or not, honestly admitted that he intuitively knows that objective morality exists when he indignantly claims that he does not have to be told, ‘by some third party’, that it is wrong to rape.

    As J. Budziszewski stated in his book “What We Can’t Not Know”, ““Yet our common moral knowledge is as real as arithmetic, and probably just as plain. Paradoxically, maddeningly, we appeal to it even to justify wrongdoing; rationalization is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge.”

    “Yet our common moral knowledge is as real as arithmetic, and probably just as plain. Paradoxically, maddeningly, we appeal to it even to justify wrongdoing; rationalization is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge.”
    – J. Budziszewski, What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide

    To repeat, Seversky simply has no basis within his materialistic worldview to declare anything as being either objectively good or objectively evil. As Michael Egnor pointed out, “Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,”

    The Universe Reflects a Mind – Michael Egnor – February 28, 2018
    Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/

    Bottom line, If Good and Evil Exist, (as Seversky himself inadvertently admitted in his claim that he intuitively knows that it is wrong to rape and that he does not have to be told that it is wrong by some third party), then God necessarily Exists.

    If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: – Peter Kreeft – Prager University – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM

    The moral argument for God is succinctly structured like this,

    Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
    Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
    Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
    The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video
    https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276

    Of supplemental note, But what of objective morality? An atheist, (if he was ever inclined to be rigorously honest with himself and with others), might honestly ask, “OK, I agree that objective morality must necessarily exist, but so what? That still does not mean that I have to be a Christian! I can still base my objective morality on some other Theistic worldview!”

    And herein the necessity of Jesus’s atoning sacrifice becomes apparent.

    God’s criteria for meeting His standard of objective morality is moral perfection. And yet no finite human can possibly meet that absolute standard of moral perfection. All other religions have man trying to work his way to moral perfection. Only Christianity deals with the situation honestly and admits that the moral perfection required by God, whilst a noble goal, is unattainable by mere human effort alone and that we are all in desperate need of God’s grace.

    As Frank Turek points out at the 41:00 minute mark of the following video, despite what is commonly believed, of someone being ‘good enough’ to go to heaven, in reality both Mother Teresa and Hitler fall short of the moral perfection required to meet the perfection of God’s objective moral code

    Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament is True – Frank Turek – video – November 2011
    (41:00 minute mark –
    http://saddleback.com/mc/m/5e22f/

    Thus humans find themselves in quite a moral dilemma. People intuitively know that objectively moral exists, (as Seversky himself inadvertently admitted on this very thread), and yet we have no way, by our own finite efforts, of reaching the moral perfection that the existence of objective morality in itself directly implies. The only way we can possibly be considered morally perfect in God’s eyes, (that is to say the only way we can be forgiven in God’s eyes), is if God himself somehow imparts that moral perfection onto us.

    Christianity is the only mono-theistic religion that deals correctly, and directly, with that infinite moral shortfall of man in regards to ever truly attaining moral perfection in God’s eyes.

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

    The technical term for what God has done for us through Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice is called ‘propitiation’:

    Falling Plates (the grace of propitiation) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGlx11BxF24

    An atheist might further honestly object, (again if he were ever inclined to be rigorously honest with himself and others), “But why doesn’t God just simply forgive us? Why did God go through all the trouble of dying a horrid death on a cross? He is God after all!”

    Well, aside from the fact that justice itself must be adequately dealt with if God is not to be considered capricious in his moral judgments, in response to that particular question, I think the following article hits the nail squarely on the head. Specifically, “With the Incarnation, the reality of evil is absorbed into the deity, not dissolved into thin air, because God freely tastes the bitterness of the medicine as wounded healer, not distant doctor. Further, given the drastic nature of this solution, we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,,

    The Problem of Evil by Benjamin D. Wiker – April 2009
    Excerpt: We still want to cry, Job-like, to those inscrutable depths, “Who are you to orchestrate everything around us puny and pitiable creatures, leaving us shuddering in the darkness, ignorant, blasted, and buffeted? It‘s all well and good to say, ‘Trust me! It‘ll all be made right in the end,‘ while you float unscathed above it all. Grinding poverty, hunger, thirst, frustration, rejection, toil, death of our loved ones, blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation — that‘s the meal we‘re served! You‘d sing a different tune if you were one of us and got a taste of your own medicine.”
    What could we say against these depths if the answer we received was not an argument but an incarnation, a full and free submission by God to the very evils about which we complain? This submission would be a kind of token, a sign that evil is very real indeed, bringing the incarnate God blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation on the cross. As real as such evil is, however, the resurrection reveals that it is somehow mysteriously comprehended within the divine plan.
    With the Incarnation, the reality of evil is absorbed into the deity, not dissolved into thin air, because God freely tastes the bitterness of the medicine as wounded healer, not distant doctor. Further, given the drastic nature of this solution, we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,,
    http://www.crisismagazine.com/.....em-of-evil

    Verse:

    1 John 2:2
    And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

  25. 25
    vividbleau says:

    “I think most of our disagreement is a disagreement over the definitions of objective and subjective, with respect to morality.”

    Our differences run deeper than that such as it is my position that that which has no objective existence has no existence at all. How one can converse and engage those that advocate for that which has no existence I will admit poses its challenges. It is however fascinating to observe how those that advocate the existence of something they affirm has no existence are incapable of understanding how absurd that position is.

    Vivid

  26. 26
    ET says:

    How I know that Ed George is “Acartia bogart”/ “William spearshake”- Other than the obvious verbatim, moronic posts, Ed said that he was engaged with a nice discussion with “Nic”. This took place over on Dr Hunter’s blog. Ed then lied and said that I was mad at Nic for having a discussion with “William spearshake”. “Wlliam spearshake” is the only anti-reason SoB that had such a discussion with Nic and also spewed the same lie about me. And Acartia bogart has already laid claim to be “William spearshake”.

    Acartia bogart/ William spearshake / Ed George also just happen to be from the same part of Canada and have similar occupations.

  27. 27
    EDTA says:

    EG @ 19,
    >”And, thankfully (in my opinion), more people share my moral values than yours.”

    Given where the majority is taking us these days, I’m not sure this should be a comforting thing.

  28. 28
    Ed George says:

    VB

    Our differences run deeper than that such as it is my position that that which has no objective existence has no existence at all.

    Does my preference for black cherry ice cream have no existence? It surely has no “objective” existence. But to me, it exists. What about ET’s hatred of homosexuals? It has no “objective” existence, but anyone who has read his comments knows that this hatred exists.

    I realize that I am using absurd examples, but you would be hard pressed to demonstrate the objective reality of either, but I can assure you that both are true.

  29. 29
    Ed George says:

    EDTA

    Given where the majority is taking us these days, I’m not sure this should be a comforting thing.

    Yes, I am very comforted. Women are now attaining the level of equality previously restricted to white heterosexual men. So are homosexuals, transgendered, racial minorities, people with other religions, indigenous peoples, etc. We still have a long way to go, but I have “faith”.

  30. 30
    Ed George says:

    ET@26, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession. You should probably seek professional help.

  31. 31
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    What about ET’s hatred of homosexuals?

    What about your beating your wife? What about your child abuse? What about your penchant for lying?

    It has no “objective” existence, but anyone who has read his comments knows that this hatred exists.

    No, only the desperate and insipid trolls “knows” that, Ed.

    I realize that I am using absurd examples,…

    That, and your lies, are all you have, Ed.

  32. 32
    vividbleau says:

    “ Does my preference for black cherry ice cream have no existence? It surely has no “objective” existence. “

    Huh?? It most certainly does exist objectively!

    Vivid

  33. 33
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    you seem to have an unhealthy obsession.

    No, I am entertained by your being a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing lose and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll.

    My case is there for all to see. And all you can do to respond is become the belligerent, infant, lying coward that you are. YOU are the one who needs professional help, Ed. You and Sybil seem to have much in common.

  34. 34
    ET says:

    I never knew that an “obsession” for the facts and evidence could be unhealthy. Perhaps it is for evoTARDs like Eddie…

  35. 35
    EDTA says:

    EG @ 29,

    I don’t follow the idea of being comforted by the direction of current change, and membership in the majority, when change is so rapid now that literally anything can happen in less than a generation. When we have said goodbye to any sort of stability, what is the source of such comfort? (I clearly don’t have your “faith” in humanity.)

    In particular, we are fracturing along nearly every line imaginable (speaking of the US anyway). That equals growing instability, which has to be worrisome.

  36. 36
    Ed George says:

    VB

    Huh?? It most certainly does exist objectively!

    How so? If we are using this as a comparison to objective moral values, this would suggest that objective moral values can change. Although black cherry is my favorite Ice cream now, a few years ago it was rum raisin. Surely you are not suggesting that objective moral values are as flexible. (And don’t call me Shirley 🙂 ).

    But I would like to thank you for being able to discuss this without making a personal attack. I really do appreciate it.

  37. 37
    vividbleau says:

    “How so? If we are using this as a comparison to objective moral values”

    But I am not using this as a comparison to objective moral standard with all due respect you are.

    “Although black cherry is my favorite Ice cream now, “

    Do you exist objectively? Does the black cherry ice cream exist objectively?

    “But I would like to thank you for being able to discuss this without making a personal attack. I really do appreciate it“

    Back at you, much appreciated.

    Vivid

  38. 38
    Ed George says:

    VB@37, but this is what I am talking about. The definition of objective. KF and others talk about “objective” as being something that is unchangeable. For example, homosexuality is objectively wrong. Always was, always will be. This doesn’t change with the times. But you argue that my preference of ice cream flavor is also objectively true. If my preference for ice cream is objective, and changeable, then other objective things, like moral values, are also changeable.

  39. 39
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    If we are using this as a comparison to objective moral values, this would suggest that objective moral values can change.

    I don’t know anyone who says that objective moral values cannot be changed or ignored by people intent on doing so (for whatever reason).

    Surely you are not suggesting that objective moral values are as flexible.

    They are not. But that doesn’t mean that people have to adhere to them or cannot change them and inject your model to suit their needs.

    Observations, facts and evidence are not personal attacks, Ed. You gave up your hand when you talked about how you and Nic used to have discussions not unlike the discussion you and vivid are now engaged in. You were posting under “William spearshake” when those discussions with Nic took place. Observations, facts and evidence, Ed.

    But I understand why you would think they are personal attacks. 🙄

  40. 40
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    KF and others talk about “objective” as being something that is unchangeable.

    The objective moral values remain regardless of what people do to them. They remain and eventually we will all find our way back to them. Regardless of people like you.

    But you argue that my preference of ice cream flavor is also objectively true.

    Perhaps you should just answer the questions and go from there.

  41. 41
    vividbleau says:

    “If my preference for ice cream is objective, and changeable, then other objective things, like moral values, are also changeable.”

    Everything you state are indeed objective except “moral” Preferences have objective existence. Ice cream exists objectively. That your preferences change is an objective fact as are your values. What doesn’t exist objectively is morality yet subjectivist continuously conflate something that does not exist with the things that do.

    Vivid

  42. 42
    Ed George says:

    ET, I’m sorry, but I’m married. I take my wedding vows seriously. As much as you beg, I can’t just run off to Mass with you. Please stop stalking me. My toaster doesn’t need to be repaired.

  43. 43
    Ed George says:

    VB, I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. My preference for ice cream is objective. My moral values are objective. My objective preference for ice cream can change but my objective moral values can’t. If this is the case, it seems to me that one of these can’t be objective.

  44. 44
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    I’m sorry

    Yes, you are. YOU are the one spreading lies about me, Ed George. Only losers and stalkers do things like that.

    Observations, facts and evidence are not personal attacks, Ed. You gave up your hand when you talked about how you and Nic used to have discussions not unlike the discussion you and vivid are now engaged in. You were posting under “William spearshake” when those discussions with Nic took place. Observations, facts and evidence, Ed.

    That is all true. And I understand why it hurts.

  45. 45
    vividbleau says:

    “VB, I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. My preference for ice cream is objective. My moral values are objective. My objective preference for ice cream can change but my objective moral values can’t. If this is the case, it seems to me that one of these can’t be objective.”

    Do you exist objectively?
    Do your preferences exist objectively?
    Does the ice cream exist objectively?
    Do your values exist objectively?
    Does morality exist objectively?

    Hint if morality has no objective existence there are no moral values they are just your personal values.

    Vivid

  46. 46
    Ed George says:

    VB

    Do you exist objectively?

    Yes.

    Do your preferences exist objectively?

    The fact that I have preferences is objective. My actual preferences are subjective.

    Does the ice cream exist objectively?

    Yes.

    Do your values exist objectively?

    The existence of values is objective. What those values are is subjective.

    Does morality exist objectively?

    Yes.

  47. 47
    vividbleau says:

    “Does morality exist objectively?

    Yes“

    Awesome

    Vivid

  48. 48
    Ed George says:

    VB@47, I’ve never denied that we all have something that we call a sense of morality. Even sociopaths and psychopaths have their own sense of morality. So, yes, I would say that “morality” exists. But that is not what we are disagreeing about. Where these moral values come from is where we disagree.

    For example, my morality does not allow me to behave like ET does. But, apparently, he has no moral qualms about calling people liars, ass munching faggots, equivocators, willfully ignorant, etc. I would feel guilty doing something like that. I suspect this is because my parents taught me from an early age that this type of behavior was wrong, then repeated these teachings, reinforced them and provided feedback, until I was able to reason that such behavior would only make me look like an ignorant fool. But I guess some people have never reached the reasoning step.

  49. 49
    vividbleau says:

    “So, yes, I would say that “morality” exists. “

    Objectively?

    Vivid

  50. 50
    Ed George says:

    VB, yes, our sense or morality objectively exists. But that is not the same as saying that our moral values are objectively derived.

    Our sense of smell objectively exists. But that doesn’t mean that how I perceive a specific smell is objectively true; it is a subjective perception.

  51. 51
    vividbleau says:

    “VB, yes, our sense or morality objectively exists. “

    I am not asking about our senses. An objective reality means that something is actual (so it exists) independent of mind (Wiki) Using that definition does morality objectively exist?

    Vivid

  52. 52
    ET says:

    Arguing morals with Ed, a known liar, bluffer, equivocator and coward, is the epitome of futility. One of Ed’s sock posted that all he is interested in is poking us and muddying the waters- it’s over on TSZ under “Acartia”

  53. 53
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    For example, my morality does not allow me to behave like ET does.

    Right. You would rather be a lying coward, who doesn’t have any morals.

    But, apparently, he has no moral qualms about calling people liars, ass munching faggots, equivocators, willfully ignorant, etc.

    I call them as they are. You are a liar. You are a coward. You are a willfully ignorant equivocator. And you are a lowlife loser.

    I would feel guilty doing something like that.

    And yet you feel free to lie about me like a little loser coward.

    I don’t have a problem with Ed being a moral subjectivist, either. Ed’s problem is that he is a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing lose and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll.

    That is the truth of Ed George. Everyone has seen that Ed has NEVER supported anything it has said about me. NEVER.

  54. 54
    ET says:

    How soon Eddie forgets:
    I don’t have a problem with Ed being a moral subjectivist, either. Ed’s problem is that he is a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing lose and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll.

    Ed George:

    Says the man who has repeatedly called people “ass munching faggots”.

    Thank you, Ed, for the perfect example of “argument by way infant belligerence”. Did your mother teach you that- when all is lost and your butt is exposed, go full-on Tourette’s meltdown syndrome?

    It is very telling that you forgot to mention why I would have done such a thing. That is if you can demonstrate that I did.

    Shall we look to see what YOU have said about Barry, Denyse, kairosfocus and others? Do you not realize that we know that you are a regular member of the evoTARD gossip swamp? And that all you do is spew vile hatred towards myself, Barry, Denyse, upright biped, gpuccio, kairosfocus and others. Are you daft?

    Then you come here in a newly washed sock and act all sanctimonious, like the punk slime that you are, and you really think you are hurting me, somehow? Really?

    Wow.

    Barry, my apologies for the language, but I think it is important to know the person they are agreeing with and supporting.

    And Ed’s cowardly quote-mines are just the vehicle to get that done, by golly.

    Ed’s problem is that he is a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing loser and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll.

    Just keep that in mind when considering what Ed has to say about me. That is all that I ask.

    Lather, rinse and repeat

  55. 55
    ET says:

    In the following thread the connection between Acartia bogart and William Spearshake is made: Are new atheists naturally selected to survive?. Acartia bogart is the same person as William Spearshake.

    In a more recent thread, Ed George claimed to have had a civilized discussion with ‘Nic’, over on Dr. Hunter’s blog. The sock who had said discussion with ‘Nic’ was none other than William Spearshake.

  56. 56
    Seversky says:

    Upright BiPed@ 11

    I’m pretty sure that the victim of rape wouldn’t give a fig about whether the “brutalization” she feels is “valid” or “invalid”. She would just want her suffering to stop.

    What a stupid thing to say. Go talk to a rape survivor, Seversky. It is rarely the pain, it’s the rape.

    I wrote “suffering”, by which I meant both the physical and emotional distress but, either way, the victims want it to stop and both they and we want to stop it happening ever again. Unfortunately, moral prohibitions, whether subjective or objective haven’t been able to do that.

    In your indignation, you’ve forgotten the actual subject of the comment. The man said his moral landscape is such that moral obligations are set by the consensus of society (you know, the same thing you promote by the compelling and authoritative brand “Consensus Theory”), but that a man living outside that consensus establishes his own obligations, and can do as he wishes – he has “no obligations” unquote.

    The only moral obligations that are worth a damn are those which people acknowledge and abide by of their own free will. Rules which are imposed and enforced from above, without the consent of those who are subject to them, are no more moral than the software running this computer. Moral guidance is only required where there is the freedom to ignore it. Unfortunately, free will means that most, if not all, of us ignore moral principles whenever it suits us and it happens whether you regard morals as objectively or subjectively based.

  57. 57
    Seversky says:

    Vividbleau@ 13

    “It also grounds “moral obligation” very simply: if you don’t rape me, I won’t rape you”

    And therefore it follows if you do rape me it is not immoral for me to rape you, more like quicksand than solid ground Bob. Morality is a game of tit for tat!

    No, it doesn’t necessarily follow. If rape is immoral in the first case then it should also be immoral in the second case, even if it is done in retaliation, unless a society has agreed to some sort of Old Testament “eye for an eye” morality.

  58. 58
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77@ 24

    E.G. quotes Seversky.

    Finally, why don’t you answer the question I’ve asked many times before: are you really telling me you wouldn’t know that rape or child abuse or any other atrocity, is morally wrong unless you had been told so by some third party? You are not capable of any independent judgement yourself?

    I had to make sure that it was indeed Seversky, a Darwinian atheist, that had asked that question because that is the same exact type of question that a Theist would ask of an moral subjectivist, (i.e. an atheistic materialist), in regards to our innate moral intuition. i.e. “Just how in blue blazes does Seversky ‘intuitively know’ that empathy and the golden rule are good and that a woman being raped is evil?” Because of his atheistic materialism, Seversky simply has no foundation to intuitively know that empathy and the golden rule are good and that a woman being raped is evil.

    I did not talk about “intuitively knowing”, I referred to “empathy” which Merriam-Webster defines as:

    : the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner

    Through empathy I can imagine something of the ordeal of a rape victim. I know that I would not like that to happen to me. I know that I would not like that to happen to family or friends or, indeed, anyone else. I have reason to believe that most other people feel the same way. That is more than enough to make rape “wrong”. I would still think it was wrong even if your God said that it was right. I take it you would agree with Him?

  59. 59
    ET says:

    So your empathy is objective?

    The only moral obligations that are worth a damn are those which people acknowledge and abide by of their own free will.

    True and that is why groups have always tried to break away. Free will has allowed for anarchy with respect to objective morals.

  60. 60
    bornagain77 says:

    So Seversky you ‘imagine’ that rape is bad? The communist Russian army ‘imagined’ that rape was good when they conquered Germany in world war II?

    ‘They raped every German female from eight to 80’
    Antony Beevor, author of the acclaimed new book about the fall of Berlin, on a massive war crime committed by the victorious Red Army.
    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/may/01/news.features11

    Who is morally right Seversky? You or the communist Russian army? Both you and they have a morality that is based in imagination and which is therefore, by definition, not objective.

  61. 61
    Reapers Plague says:

    ET

    In a more recent thread, Ed George claimed to have had a civilized discussion with ‘Nic’, over on Dr. Hunter’s blog. The sock who had said discussion with ‘Nic’ was none other than William Spearshake.

    I am William Spearshake and so is my wife. The tinfoil is strong with this one. 🙂

  62. 62
    ET says:

    Reaper is most likely a lonely sock of Ed’s…

  63. 63

    .
    Sev at 56

    The only moral obligations that are worth a damn are those which people acknowledge and abide by of their own free will.

    You seem to be having a hard time understanding the actual issue under discussion, or perhaps you are just avoiding it. In either case, you’ve come back to miss the target once again.

    Let me ask you to focus on a phrase. The phrase is just three words long, but if you can focus on it for a moment or two, perhaps we might have better assurances that you’ll understand the issue being discussed and then connect with it in your comments.

    The phrase was spoken by Ed, and this is what he said: “have no obligation”.

    What Ed was describing here is a very clear and important distinction he makes between two Eds. The first Ed is a man living in a society, who (following Ed George’s view of the world) must adhere to the moral consensus of that society in order “to be welcome” there. The second Ed, however, is described as a man who lives by himself out in the hills, outside of that society. The second Ed is his own consensus. Under those conditions (again directly following Ed George’s view of the world) he has no obligation whatsoever to any poor sap that might happen upon his hill.

    Do you now see the distinction he is making? He has been very clear about it. Here it is again: ”If I chose to live by myself in a cabin in the hills I would have no obligation”. It really doesn’t appear to be all that hard to understand.

    Free will exists for both Eds, and has nothing to do with it. Neither does consent.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    One of the key points made by people (those who tend to believe that an objective right and wrong exist in the cosmos) is that subjectivists have no backstop to actually establish a distinction between right and wrong, if there is indeed to be one. This is not an empty intellectual bucket; it is a point that has been famously echoed among key subjectivists themselves. And thus, wrong can become right without moral dilemma. This can not only happen (among both objectivists and subjectivists alike) with all the catastrophic results recorded in our history (and much more that will never even be known), but it can happen fully within the subjectivist’s view. This is the point that Ed has made so abundantly clear. He makes the objectivist’s point for them, with enthusiasm.

    It would be very easy to just back up for a moment and simply say that Ed has mistakenly (oops) said something really very stupid, and blah, blah, blah. But then he and you, the two of you, show up to defend it. Up to this point, that defense (when it is not mere mockery) simply ignores the whole point that Ed so clearly makes certain. It is nothing more than an attempt to cover it all up in words (grist for the mill). But none of those words changes a damn thing.

    And just to remember, this is an ID blog. While you are covering the core entailments of your worldview with irrelevant observations (Ed even tells us with comical intensity that the entire history of the world – without question – proves his case) neither of you is even the slightest bit willing to acknowledge experimental facts and documented scientific history. I know this for a fact because I have put them directly in front of you. Neither of you can even speak the words.

    This last point in the critical issue for this blog, and both of you have failed spectacularly.

  64. 64
    vividbleau says:

    “It also grounds “moral obligation” very simply: if you don’t rape me, I won’t rape you”

    And therefore it follows if you do rape me it is not immoral for me to rape you, more like quicksand than solid ground Bob. Morality is a game of tit for tat!

    “No, it doesn’t necessarily follow. If rape is immoral in the first case then it should also be immoral in the second case, even if it is done in retaliation, unless a society has agreed to some sort of Old Testament “eye for an eye” morality.”

    If moral obligation is simply do unto others that they do to you it very much follows that it is moral to respond in kind, sure the injured party may have a code of behavior that does not reciprocate and this would be moral or reciprocate and this to would be moral, Heck any action can be moral, To repeat this is far from solid ground

    “If rape is immoral in the first case then it should also be immoral in the second “

    Why?

    Vivid

  65. 65
    bornagain77 says:

    At 56 Seversky claims that:

    “The only moral obligations that are worth a damn are those which people acknowledge and abide by of their own free will.”

    Seversky has finally gone completely off the deep end. None of that, moral obligations nor free will, can possibly be grounded within his atheistic materialism.

    As Marfin pointed out in the other thread, “We are selected for fitness not for good or evil , right and wrong.”,,,

    Marfin
    I will ask this question one more time as I have asked it many times before , if we as humans are a product of mindless evolution then how can any standard of objective morality exist? We are selected for fitness not for good or evil , right and wrong. (G)ood and evil are just word(s) to describe how we feel based on chemical reactions in our brains they have no ultimate foundation.,,,
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/sev-and-ed-respond-to-upright-biped-and-fail-spectacularly/#comment-688739

    As Dawkins himself stated, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”

    Why Atheism is Nonsense Pt.5 – “Naturalism is a Self-defeating Idea – video
    Excerpt: “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
    Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff-5rsrDRGM

    Why should fitness give two cents damn about what is true and/or moral about life? Natural Selection is ONLY tuned to fitness. Nothing else matters. Period.

    The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016
    The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.
    Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.”
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

    In fact, if evolution by natural selection, i.e. ‘fitness’, were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most ‘mutational firepower’, since only they, since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and ‘mutational firepower’, would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution ruled and only the fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this Richard Dawkins’ video:

    Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video
    Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62031.html

    As Darwin himself stated,

    “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”
    – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – pg. 66

    The logic of natural selection is nicely summed up in the following graph,

    The Logic of Natural Selection – graph
    http://recticulatedgiraffe.wee.....35.jpg?308

    Again. natural selection couldn’t give two cents damn about what is true and/or moral about life. As Darwin himself stated, “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

    “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
    – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

    Any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, thinking, morally noble and altruistic behavior, etc.., would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ view, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it obviously slows down successful reproduction.

    In fact, Darwin himself offered this blatantly anti-morality falsification criteria for his theory, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”

    “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
    – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species

    Tell me Seversky, exactly where is love, empathy, and altruism in Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ maxim to be found?
    Altruistic behavior of any type is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s ‘general law’ of “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

    As well, directly contrary to what Seversky claimed about he himself having the free will necessary to abide by moral obligations, Darwinian materialism explicitly denies the existence of free will.

    Darwin’s Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails – Nancy Pearcey – April 23, 2015
    Excerpt: This is an amazing case of Orwellian doublethink. Minsky says people are “forced to maintain” the conviction of free will, even when their own worldview tells them that “it’s false.”
    When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine — a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules” interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, “When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, … see that they are machines.”
    Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: “That is not how I treat them…. I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis.” Certainly if what counts as “rational” is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks’s worldview. It sticks out of his box.
    How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn’t. Brooks ends by saying, “I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs.” He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....95451.html

    THE ILLUSION OF FREE WILL – Sam Harris – 2012
    Excerpt: “Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.”
    – Jerry Coyne
    https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/

    Free Will: Weighing Truth and Experience – Do our beliefs matter? – Mar 22, 2012
    Excerpt: If we acknowledge just how much we don’t know about the conscious mind, perhaps we would be a bit more humble. We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-brain-social-mind/201203/free-will-weighing-truth-and-experience
    Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor

  66. 66
    bornagain77 says:

    Free will, despite Seversky’s false claim that it can be grounded within his atheistic materialism, is a thoroughly Theistic presupposition than simply can never be grounded within Seversky’s deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism:

    Scientific Approaches to the Philosophy of Religion
    Excerpt: “God has endowed us with free will, free will in the sense of the unfettered ability to determine our own actions.”
    https://books.google.com/books?id=1NkIM8hmclAC&pg=PA230

    “Free will: a source totally detached from matter (detached from nature) which is the origin (cause) of options, thoughts, feelings,… That is, the absence of (natural) laws, the existence of an “autonomous mind”, i.e. a principium individuationis.”

    Moreover, the reality of free will has now been verified by both neuroscience and quantum mechanics,

    In the following video, Dr. Michael Egnor shows that the evidence from neuroscience supports the reality of free will,

    Michael Egnor Shows You’re Not A Meat Robot (Science Uprising EP2)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQo6SWjwQIk&list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&index=3

    A Famous Argument Against Free Will Has Been Debunked
    For decades, a landmark brain study fed speculation about whether we control our own actions. It seems to have made a classic mistake.
    BAHAR GHOLIPOUR – SEP 10, 2019
    Excerpt: In a new study under review for publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Schurger and two Princeton researchers repeated a version of Libet’s experiment. To avoid unintentionally cherry-picking brain noise, they included a control condition in which people didn’t move at all. An artificial-intelligence classifier allowed them to find at what point brain activity in the two conditions diverged. If Libet was right, that should have happened at 500 milliseconds before the movement. But the algorithm couldn’t tell any difference until about only 150 milliseconds before the movement, the time people reported making decisions in Libet’s original experiment.
    In other words, people’s subjective experience of a decision—what Libet’s study seemed to suggest was just an illusion—appeared to match the actual moment their brains showed them making a decision.
    When Schurger first proposed the neural-noise explanation, in 2012, the paper didn’t get much outside attention, but it did create a buzz in neuroscience. Schurger received awards for overturning a long-standing idea. “It showed the Bereitschaftspotential may not be what we thought it was. That maybe it’s in some sense artifactual, related to how we analyze our data,” says Uri Maoz, a computational neuroscientist at Chapman University.
    For a paradigm shift, the work met minimal resistance. Schurger appeared to have unearthed a classic scientific mistake, so subtle that no one had noticed it and no amount of replication studies could have solved it, unless they started testing for causality.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/

    Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz has also done work in the area of brain plasticity in which a person’s focused attention can change the physical structure of the brain itself. Which, needless to say, is also very strong evidence for the reality of free will,

    Jeffrey Schwartz: You Are More than Your Brain – Science Uprising Extra Content – (2019) video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFIOSQNuXuY&list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&index=9

    As well, besides this evidence from neuroscience confirming the reality of free will, free will is now also confirmed to be real by advances in quantum mechanics itself.

    As leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    As well, with contextuality we find that, “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation”

    Contextuality is ‘magic ingredient’ for quantum computing – June 11, 2012
    Excerpt: Contextuality was first recognized as a feature of quantum theory almost 50 years ago. The theory showed that it was impossible to explain measurements on quantum systems in the same way as classical systems.
    In the classical world, measurements simply reveal properties that the system had, such as colour, prior to the measurement. In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation.
    Imagine turning over a playing card. It will be either a red suit or a black suit – a two-outcome measurement. Now imagine nine playing cards laid out in a grid with three rows and three columns. Quantum mechanics predicts something that seems contradictory – there must be an even number of red cards in every row and an odd number of red cards in every column. Try to draw a grid that obeys these rules and you will find it impossible. It’s because quantum measurements cannot be interpreted as merely revealing a pre-existing property in the same way that flipping a card reveals a red or black suit.
    Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment.
    Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. That’s part of the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
    per physorg

    And as this recent experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established, “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.

    More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019
    Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
    https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html

    Moreover, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:

    Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014
    Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics.
    “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?”
    per science daily

    And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenters themselves in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Abstract: In this Letter, we present a cosmic Bell experiment with polarization-entangled photons, in which measurement settings were determined based on real-time measurements of the wavelength of photons from high-redshift quasars, whose light was emitted billions of years ago; the experiment simultaneously ensures locality. Assuming fair sampling for all detected photons and that the wavelength of the quasar photons had not been selectively altered or previewed between emission and detection, we observe statistically significant violation of Bell’s inequality by 9.3 standard deviations, corresponding to an estimated p value of 7.4 × 10^21. This experiment pushes back to at least 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    Moreover allowing free will and/or Agent causality into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level has some fairly profound implications for us personally.

    One of the most profound implications for us personally is that allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), by rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics then that provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim:

    Overturning of the Copernican Principle by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/we-are-invited-to-consider-a-simpler-perspective-on-the-laws-of-physics/#comment-680427

    (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,,
    Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Leave a Reply