What gives human life its worth?

[Havard]

Yep, another philosophy thread...

This thread is not just another abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, assisted suicide, etc., etc. thread.

It's much simpler than any of that: how do you explain your belief that human life has a special worth? By this, I mean the widely held belief that innocent human lives cannot be snuffed out simply based upon the economic or social "needs" of society.

E.g., we have programs to kill off deer and wolves when they overpopulate, but we would never think to suggest that of our own species in overpopulated habitats. Why, in your opinion, is a human life so particularly special?

[Drakeon]

Possibly because we understand and relate to humans much better then a different species.

We can't talk to deer and tell them to stop mating, you can do that with people (although admitidly it doesn't always work, but China has a child limit right?)

I think it has to do with communication and understanding. I'm sure theres more to be said on the subject, but those are my guesses as to why we're "special" when it comes to overpopulation.

[Bartleby]

Self preservation... because if you can easily dispense with one human, you can dispense with any other, which means you too can be snuffed out.
Morbid, but still my opinion.

As to what gives life in general it's worth... I'd have to say it's what you do with it. You either make it invaluable or worthless.

[Ryu]

we have the intelligence to use our bodies to the maximum and truly develop societies/cities/whatever and have a civilization and think etc, too hard to describe so throwing a couple key words out

[Wickedly_Evil]

Call me an evil bastard but I am totally against programs like feed the children. First of a good portion of the money is rerouted to the spokesperson. Way to make money by exploiting people's weakness for children. Second I feel that providing (money to pay for food therefore indirectly food) food to an overpopulated country is self defeating. The area will naturally only support so many people. I find it a bad idea to enable more children to survive to create a population explosion. I would be much more likely to support programs to pass out condoms. This would encourage having sex while not having children that can't be supported and die as a result. Less developed nations have higher childbirth rates on average. [Think about it like this for a second before you flame me: there would be less overall suffering for these children if a responsible number of children were created in the first place]



Back to your question I suspect that if deer or wolves began speaking and started legislation to prevent their wholesale slaughter then we might have a different view on them. Personally I think we find human life to be valuable because we are humans. Not very many animals will kill one another (much less eat one another). Humans in the past have done both.

[Ryu]

also, we are not all identical, some humans will commit crimes just because, dogs will only be violent if beaten or raised in a bad home etc, humans dont need that although its more likely that way

[Paladuck]

Thinking.

We're certainly not the only animals that think, but I think we do understand the underlying principles of thought better than other animals. We can see that "thinking" is unique from "kicking" or "talking" or even "dreaming." Humans (probably through cultural shaping) have a basic sense of decency, so we probably wouldn't condone tossing a thousand puppy dogs into a fire just for the hell of it. I think this decency extends to all members of our own species no matter what the cause. Welp, thats my layman's answer.

(I really hate philosophy.)

[ScytheNoire]

i think the measure of a persons value is the affect it would have on other human lives.

for example...

Hitler affected millions of lives in a very negative way. the value of his life is very low.

Norman Borlaug who is responsible for crops being able to be grown in the harshest conditions and saving billions of lives would be held at a very high value.

so i think the value of human life is directly linked to the accomplishments, both positive and negative, in their life.

while an unborn fetis has no value, only potential value, it doesn't mean that it is worth anything as it has not done anything to create value.

therefore, human life in general is not special. it's the accomplishments of certain individuals that is special. thus an unborn child has no value in the grand scheme of things because just as easily as they may solve a massive world problem, they can just as easily be the next Hilter or simply add no value to the rest of human society.

[powermongor]

Yep, another philosophy thread...

This thread is not just another abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, assisted suicide, etc., etc. thread.

It's much simpler than any of that: how do you explain your belief that human life has a special worth? By this, I mean the widely held belief that innocent human lives cannot be snuffed out simply based upon the economic or social "needs" of society.

E.g., we have programs to kill off deer and wolves when they overpopulate, but we would never think to suggest that of our own species in overpopulated habitats. Why, in your opinion, is a human life so particularly special?

The sanctity of human life just is. We are the only form of life that matters on this planet. An innocent person's life is unquestionably more valuable than a guilty person's.

[Havard]

...therefore, human life in general is not special. it's the accomplishments of certain individuals that is special. thus an unborn child has no value in the grand scheme of things because just as easily as they may solve a massive world problem, they can just as easily be the next Hilter or simply add no value to the rest of human society.

By that definition, wouldn't a severely mentally handicapped person who will always be dependent upon others have less value because he or she is using human and natural resources and not creating them?

PS: powermongor, I'm glad to see that you decided to come back :thumbsup:

[SaroDarksbane]

Uh oh.

*prepares for AoA's arrival*

[ScytheNoire]

By that definition, wouldn't a severely mentally handicapped person who will always be dependent upon others have less value because he or she is using human and natural resources and not creating them?

oh course their life would have less value. in fact, most people i've ever met have a very low value as they have not accomplished all that much towards the goodness of mankind.

think whatever you want of me, but i feel that no one would ever miss me if i didn't exist. my life value is not very high, and neither is most other peoples.

humans are not unique nor all that important. there are, what, 6 billion of us? we are about as important as flies.

any one who says humans are all important or that an "innocent" life is some sacred soul is a bunch of BS religious crap. these same people would turn around and burn a suspected "guilty" person at the stake because their beliefs were different.

don't let religious BS confuse the scientific facts.

[ekim]

The sanctity of human life just is. We are the only form of life that matters on this planet. An innocent person's life is unquestionably more valuable than a guilty person's.

Why? Why are we the only life that matters on this planet?

[ScytheNoire]

Why? Why are we the only life that matters on this planet?
we aren't. we aren't by far.
that BS that powermongor just spewed out is the same type of religious BS that you hear those right-wing jackazzes spew out about being anti-stem-cell research and not saving the lives of people who may actually have some value.

humans are not special. we are not unique. no human life is worth more than that of a dog, cat or bird. humans are so freakin' common i can't move ten feet without seeing one. can't say that about the Siberian Tiger or Panda.

humans are also the only form of life on this planet that purposely goes out of it's way to hunt down and kill others of it's species. we are the only species that willingly destroys all other species without thought or consideration. we are the only species that can be found on every piece of land on this planet.

face it, humans are just so common and worthless that we need to make up a higher purpose in order to bring meaning to our worthless existance. there is no god, no special supernatural power came along and created man, this world, all that is on it and everything in the universe just for our enjoyment. that is such a bunch of BS that it makes me wish that we could develop a way to rid the world of such stupid thinking individuals since their minds are so far gone that they are simply wasting resources.

[Galron Kincaid]

Emotions, memories, ideals...... what gives life it's worth is inside your head, IMHO.

What you ARE is what you have in the head. This starts from the very concept of "being".

[ekim]

we aren't. we aren't by far.
that BS that powermongor just spewed out is the same type of religious BS that you hear those right-wing jackazzes spew out about being anti-stem-cell research and not saving the lives of people who may actually have some value.

humans are not special. we are not unique. no human life is worth more than that of a dog, cat or bird. humans are so freakin' common i can't move ten feet without seeing one. can't say that about the Siberian Tiger or Panda.

humans are also the only form of life on this planet that purposely goes out of it's way to hunt down and kill others of it's species. we are the only species that willingly destroys all other species without thought or consideration. we are the only species that can be found on every piece of land on this planet.

face it, humans are just so common and worthless that we need to make up a higher purpose in order to bring meaning to our worthless existance. there is no god, no special supernatural power came along and created man, this world, all that is on it and everything in the universe just for our enjoyment. that is such a bunch of BS that it makes me wish that we could develop a way to rid the world of such stupid thinking individuals since their minds are so far gone that they are simply wasting resources.

I know. Couldnt have said that better myself. I want powermongor to explain how he thinks that humans are the only living being that exist on this planet. What I think he fails to realise is how much we need those other living things to live ourselves. Crushing one part of our enviroment because they dont matter creates a domino effect which deeply hurts the rest of the enviroment.

[bleachy]

Human life doesn't have much worth, in my opinion.

I would explain, but Scythe has said what I would of(more or less).

[Graav Wolfsong]

I pretty much agree with Scythe.

Human life is not "special", our life is not more important than any animals. We are animals too, just highly evolved ones. As far a value of life goes, that applies equally to all beings. Ideally that is.

Whatever percieved qualities that humankind has that can be used as a source of argument that we are "better" than other beings on this world are instantly crushed by mankinds capacity for unspeakable evil. Our developed minds, higher capacity for love, self sacrifice and good also gave us the capacity for evil and meaningless ruthlessness. Something no other being on the earth shares with us.
In the grand scheme of things, humankind has done nothing but hurt this planet.

All life is valuable but in essence we are no more valuable than any other beings and in all fairness, our actions and exploitation of everything around us should make us less valuable. But we like to think we are better. And because we are the dominant species we have the power to deem ourselves superior and will continue to do so. Humankind as whole are little more than narcissistic, sociopathic animals.

The notion that we are the only species that matters comes from modern society, a society that has lifted humankind out of the natural order of things. People who live in a modern society arent on top of the food chain, they arent even in it, it means nothing.
But the second a man steps in to the wild he becomes a part of the natural order of things again, his life no more valuable than any animals, and modern socity having taken away alot of our instincts and skills, the average person wont even be on the top of the food chain when placed in the wild with nothing but his body and wits to survive, he would have the potential to rise to the top but it would take learning and experience. Not being at the top of the food chain, does that mean the animal potentially making you dinner is more valuable than you?
A man steps in to the water and instantly finds himself low on the food chain, once again no more valuable than any other beings, no more than a potential dinner.

See my point? The notion that we are better and more valuable is all in our heads, a foolish idea we have developed as we and our technology evolved.

I cant stress enough that the essence of life is is equal in all beings. Wich brings us to the concept of souls and spiritual power, wich in turn brings us to religion and a deadlock of beliefs. The percieved immortal soul that only humanbeings posess is ridiculous, here too we are equal to animals. All living, sentient beings posess souls and they are the same as ours.

So from my belief that all beings are inherently equally valiuable, from the most powerful of man to the most rabid of badgers ( :lol: ), does that mean no lives should be taken? No. Death is the one constant thing in the world, all living beings eventually die. Its natural. We kill animals for food, in order to live and they kill us for the same reason whenever given the chance.

The reasoning and particulars around the sin of taking a life comes down to morals, wich are different from belief to belief, from one humanbeing to another. All life is equal, and then further determined by each and every being sense of morals and principles.
No animal ever kills anything unless it is hungry or threatened or in some cases, mental illness. Can that be said for humanbeings? No. humans have been known to kill for fun, or over meaningless posessions or beliefs, we kill animals, we kill eachother, we kill our planet.
So in a sense, animals has better moral principles than mankind. Simply because our highly evolved minds are so vulnerable to corruption.

We are in no way better than any other being. To say so is hypocritical and delusional.

[Maullus]

Greetings,

I typed out a rather long reply to this. Read it, deleted it. I'll try again, shorter.

The sanctity of human life just is.

humans are not special. we are not unique. no human life is worth more than that of a dog, cat or bird.

The original posters will please forgive me for cutting and pasting their words out of context.

That about sums my belief up. Life itself is innately precious. I won't get into the details, or the inevitable counters to that claim...("What about microscopic organisms? Do you kill bugs? Eat meat?")

[Essex]

I think Fight Club summed it all up best.

You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your ****ing khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.

and I pretty much agree with Scythe.. I mean if Panda's could talk they'd probably think they are pretty damn special too.

[Lord Chad]

Even though we are being over populated I think aids might just wipe out half the world if you thinkg about it.Or another black plague will start again.Or space colonies.


And the importance of human life is that just one little human could change the course of history.Or think about it and atleast someone loves that little human.

[Ryu]

any one who says humans are all important or that an "innocent" life is some sacred soul is a bunch of BS religious crap. these same people would turn around and burn a suspected "guilty" person at the stake because their beliefs were different.

wrong
some ppl may do that but that occurs whenver theres ANYTHING that not everyone agrees on, dont overgeneralize, im not for the death penalty so dont try to make it sound like i am, i do think human life is sacred

[Coltaine]

But animals kill members of their species to get a partner to mate with.
Animals cheet their mates and have sex with some guy from a different clan.
Pike babys swim at each other, the one with the bigger maw wins.

How can you say the order we have right now is not natural? Mankind evoled through nature. To take away all tools is like braking to teeth of a Lion an say: "look without his teeth he is not that big anymore."

The problem with mankind is i think, we learn to damn fast. We got to good at what we do. Now it needs some thinking how to cooperate with nature.

[Coltaine]

How can one measure the life of a person on what effect he had on other ppl?

Is the person that saves the baby Hitler from death worth less than the person that saves a random other baby from death?
How do you know what effect that person had on other people?
He might have done something slightly wrong and by doing that helped other ppl to see the wrong and influance them positivly.
The person that wanted to do something very bad which turned out good is better than the person that wanted to do something good which turned out very bad?
If an unborn baby has no value and a very bad person has little value, the very bad person has more value than an unborn baby?
It would be right to sacrifice a Million babys(or hundreds or thousands) to safe the life of a peace noble price owner?

Just a few questions that i got from reading the posts.

[Graav Wolfsong]

But animals kill members of their species to get a partner to mate with.
Animals cheet their mates and have sex with some guy from a different clan.
Pike babys swim at each other, the one with the bigger maw wins.

Granted, you have a point there.
But my point still stands, that is all instincts, survival, serves a purpose.

Like I said, humanbeings often kill out of cruelty, for fun, for meaningless reasons. And what makes it worse is that humanbeings have the presence of mind to go against instincts, we have the ability to chose not to kill anything. It all comes down to that mankind tend to take lives because they want to.

Humans are destructive in nature.


The problem with mankind is i think, we learn to damn fast. We got to good at what we do. Now it needs some thinking how to cooperate with nature.

I think the problem would be that we misuse our knowledge and abilites. We dont show respect for nature. We think were above it all. Slowly destroying our planet to make ourselves comfortable is not natural in any way.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Heh.. bring forth the nihilists!!!

I'm too tired to get into this ATM, perhaps later on. You guys know my position :lol:.

[Coltaine]

Granted, you have a point there.
But my point still stands, that is all instincts, survival, serves a purpose.

Like I said, humanbeings often kill out of cruelty, for fun, for meaningless reasons. And what makes it worse is that humanbeings have the presence of mind to go against instincts, we have the ability to chose not to kill anything. It all comes down to that mankind tend to take lives because they want to.

Humans are destructive in nature.


What tells you that murdering some person is not in some way instinct and serves a purpose?
Defend you terretory, get resources so you survive (money), Kill the person that steals you mate.
And i think people that kill for fun are quiete rare. Most of which have a mental disorder, which somebody also meantioned in animals.
I don't think mankind take lives because they want to. Many kinds of killing, the instincs take over (dear jugde, i didn't now what i was doing) or to give you an advantage over the rest. By this i don't want in any kind say that it is ok to murder a person. Just that they reasons are also similar to the animals.
Black widow kills his mate to provide food for their children.
Men kill to revenge for some rapist, person they think will make the world worse for them or their children.
I think it very possible, that we still have an instinct to collect as many resources as possible. Normally this is also needed to survive.

Or did you mean persons that tear legs out of spiders to see what will happen?
Do you think a cat is cruel? Do you think an animal that wont eat every little thing of the hunted down animal ist cruel if it does not instandly kill its prey?

"Humans are destructive by nature."
Humans are not destructive by nature.

Each sentense has an equal backing i would say.
I don't belive that the majority is destructive. A small portion of ppl are destructive. Combined with the ability to lead (alpha male) this can get out of hand fast.

Why would you not think that this is natural?
Darwinism also takes into account, that an animal, that hunts to much is not the fittest. If a cat kill every birdnest it sees and then eats only the dotter of the eggs. it will at some point be extinct and replaced by the cat that is not so a good hunter and misses every 2nd nest.

[Havard]

any one who says humans are all important or that an "innocent" life is some sacred soul is a bunch of BS religious crap. these same people would turn around and burn a suspected "guilty" person at the stake because their beliefs were different.

wrong
some ppl may do that but that occurs whenver theres ANYTHING that not everyone agrees on, dont overgeneralize, im not for the death penalty so dont try to make it sound like i am, i do think human life is sacred

Just a tip, Ryu, quotation marks or boxes around quotes makes it helpful for other people. I figured out that you were quoting Scythe, it also helps to mention the original poster's name for other people's references. :thumbsup:

[Sage the Mage]

Somone hasn't payed attention to the other threads have they?

[ScytheNoire]

Just a tip, Ryu, quotation marks or boxes around quotes makes it helpful for other people. I figured out that you were quoting Scythe, it also helps to mention the original poster's name for other people's references. :thumbsup:

yes, if we are going to be burning someone at the stake, you want to make sure you grab the right witch/warlock. :howdy:

these discussions are all very tiresom and annoying. we all have our own opinions, majority of us will disagree with something or another, and there is no changing the minds of another person, not that some are even trying.

i say we all just agree to disagree.

know what this forum needs, dancing animals. we can all agree that dancing animals are entertaining... right?

[Havard]

Don't forget the carnival freaks! :winner:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

these discussions are all very tiresom and annoying. we all have our own opinions, majority of us will disagree with something or another, and there is no changing the minds of another person, not that some are even trying.


Yes, in most cases that's true, but we should strive to uncover the "true" position on the matter if we can. These discussions have merit for those interested enough to follow them.

[Eiger]

we aren't. we aren't by far.
that BS that powermongor just spewed out is the same type of religious BS that you hear those right-wing jackazzes spew out about being anti-stem-cell research and not saving the lives of people who may actually have some value.

humans are not special. we are not unique. no human life is worth more than that of a dog, cat or bird. humans are so freakin' common i can't move ten feet without seeing one. can't say that about the Siberian Tiger or Panda.

humans are also the only form of life on this planet that purposely goes out of it's way to hunt down and kill others of it's species. we are the only species that willingly destroys all other species without thought or consideration. we are the only species that can be found on every piece of land on this planet.

face it, humans are just so common and worthless that we need to make up a higher purpose in order to bring meaning to our worthless existance. there is no god, no special supernatural power came along and created man, this world, all that is on it and everything in the universe just for our enjoyment. that is such a bunch of BS that it makes me wish that we could develop a way to rid the world of such stupid thinking individuals since their minds are so far gone that they are simply wasting resources.
Well put Scythe. I agree.

[Bartleby]

Human life, like all life is inherently valuable. How much you value any form of life over another is your personal bias.
Some like Power see human life as the most important, others like Scythe disagree; but they all have value because life itself is valuable.
In the grander scheme of things I believe all creatures are of equal value evidenced in that they serve a(many) purpose(s) that directly or indirectly benefits all.
Take a cow for instance: A cow provides a home for all sorts of life (bacterial for instance), keeps the grass from growing uncontrollably, provides flies with a place to lay eggs, and can become an excellent steak. Some of these purposes directly benefit people while others don't or do so indirectly. And people serve a(many) purpose(s) as well, that benefit the cow directly or indirectly. Just because I eat the cow doesn't make it or me any more or less valuable in the universe.
We, and all life, are interdependent, but that doesn't mean I should stop eating meat or wearing leather (sorry still on the cow theme).

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Originally Posted by ScytheNoire
we aren't. we aren't by far.
that BS that powermongor just spewed out is the same type of religious BS that you hear those right-wing jackazzes spew out about being anti-stem-cell research and not saving the lives of people who may actually have some value.

humans are not special. we are not unique. no human life is worth more than that of a dog, cat or bird. humans are so freakin' common i can't move ten feet without seeing one. can't say that about the Siberian Tiger or Panda.

humans are also the only form of life on this planet that purposely goes out of it's way to hunt down and kill others of it's species. we are the only species that willingly destroys all other species without thought or consideration. we are the only species that can be found on every piece of land on this planet.

face it, humans are just so common and worthless that we need to make up a higher purpose in order to bring meaning to our worthless existance. there is no god, no special supernatural power came along and created man, this world, all that is on it and everything in the universe just for our enjoyment. that is such a bunch of BS that it makes me wish that we could develop a way to rid the world of such stupid thinking individuals since their minds are so far gone that they are simply wasting resources.

Scythe, a man of reason would not consider this a worthy argument. If you are a sceptic, present a reasoned argument for why there can be no creator God. However, any position that is based on negation and reduction is not a viable platform, as there is something rather than nothing, and as such, demands explanation. The same can be said for reason.
And Eiger, don't say "well put" to an emotionally charged post. Say "well put" to arguments - you should know better.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Bart - you see clearly how things operate in a system, but what is the purpose of this system? This is what is truly at stake in ascertaining inherent value.

[Bartleby]

By asking for the purpose of the system, you are asking what is the ultimate purpose of life aka "what is the meaning of life". That's a whole other topic, but to answer... I don't know. Maybe the answer is in fact to try to discern the answer itself, which would make the journey or to live the meaning of life.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

THe meaning of life is deduced only after the purpose of the "system" is discovered, so they are not in essence the same thing. I was interested in the underpinnings of the universality you assented to, laced with eastern mysticism.

[Eiger]

And Eiger, don't say "well put" to an emotionally charged post. Say "well put" to arguments - you should know better.
I'll post how I like thank you very much. Let's add "bossy" to your list of attributes... :lol:

[Essex]

Scythe, a man of reason would not consider this a worthy argument. If you are a sceptic, present a reasoned argument for why there can be no creator God. However, any position that is based on negation and reduction is not a viable platform, as there is something rather than nothing, and as such, demands explanation. The same can be said for reason.
And Eiger, don't say "well put" to an emotionally charged post. Say "well put" to arguments - you should know better.
lemme get this straight... you can't say that you belive there is no God without offering an explaination for why we exsist.

See now.. I look at like this... there is no God.. no all knowing being who controlls our actions made our one world out of the billions in the universe and who also is so anal he cares, (depending on who you talk to) about what you eat, what you drink, what you say, what you think, who you ****, and how you feel.

Also I have no idea how the universe started, I have no idea how time started, but if you gave me an option between scentific reasons with some proof, and some thought put behind them, or spiritual rhretoric.............I'm going with the science every time.

Bill Mahre said it best on Larry King last night.. he was talking about who makes the policy in this country and he said it's the south... the more religious side.

He said that right now there are two options who steers our ship, the guy with the compass and a map who is using thinking and reason, which is the seculiar types, and then there is the guy who kills a chicke and reads its entrails.... right now we are listening to the guy who kill a chicken and reads its entrails for how we should be going.

I think the same is happening in this thread....


besides I like animals and when we say we are better it's just one more excuse for us to go about ****ing up their world.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'll post how I like thank you very much. Let's add "bossy" to your list of attributes... :lol:

Live and not learn, grow old and never accept correction. Post as you wish :uhhuh:.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

lemme get this straight... you can't say that you belive there is no God without offering an explaination for why we exsist.


Reason demands there be a prime mover and creator to create and sustain our existence. For someone who listened to the same arguments "over and over and over" (as you mentioned on the other thread), you either don't listen, or ignore the content.


See now.. I look at like this... there is no God.. no all knowing being who controlls our actions made our one world out of the billions in the universe and who also is so anal he cares, (depending on who you talk to) about what you eat, what you drink, what you say, what you think, who you ****, and how you feel.


Your conception of God dictates your view. This is the God you attest to. WHere did this come from - rev. Phelps?


Also I have no idea how the universe started, I have no idea how time started, but if you gave me an option between scentific reasons with some proof, and some thought put behind them, or spiritual rhretoric.............I'm going with the science every time.


Science derives data from the world around us, providing answers when merged together. THis can only support the truth, not negate it. Science was never in opposition to God. I'll offer our readers a text "the evidential power of beauty" - thomas dubay. I know you won't read it, but perhaps others will.


Bill Mahre said it best on Larry King last night.. he was talking about who makes the policy in this country and he said it's the south... the more religious side.


See? THis, and your continual reference to rev. phelps, and fire and brimstone christianity, colors your outlook. If all the posters here had a critical distance from views to consider them objectively and rationally, we would have a somewhat intelligent symposium here.


He said that right now there are two options who steers our ship, the guy with the compass and a map who is using thinking and reason, which is the seculiar types,


Ironically, the majority of secular people I know are largely incapable of correct thinking (as well as a fair amount of religious). Laughably, my detractors here believe they're actually thinking when they reply. However, all we get is scepticism, which cannot stand on its own.


and then there is the guy who kills a chicke and reads its entrails.... right now we are listening to the guy who kill a chicken and reads its entrails for how we should be going.
I think the same is happening in this thread....
besides I like animals and when we say we are better it's just one more excuse for us to go about ****ing up their world.

Our place in the hierarchy of nature does not detract from our proper stewardship and love of animals.

[SpiritWalker]

Oh man, AoA you're almost as intelligent as me :p, gotta love your replies, serious man, good job :thumbsup:

I am going to refrain from posting my oppinion in this thread, because really, come on guys, aren't you all getting a weee bit tired of this conversation, different title, same discussion over and over. And don't say it's for the new people, because there are really only us hardcore peeps who join in these discussions ;)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yes, it's usually the same thing over and over. SOme good came of it however. BTW, I hope you werent being sarcastic :evil:.

[SpiritWalker]

No man, no sarcasm.. this time :innocent:

[Booms]

Reason demands there be a prime mover and creator to create and sustain our existence.

Explain. You've probably backed up this statement before, but I either missed that thread of have completely forgotten what you said. And since the rest of your argument essentially depends on there being a prime mover it is essential that you prove your point.

Science derives data from the world around us, providing answers when merged together. THis can only support the truth, not negate it. Science was never in opposition to God.

Umm....there are some definite cases in which science was in opposition with The Bible, which is the word of God. Example: The Earth was created in seven days. Unless you take some artistic license and say that these "days" were actually long periods of time during which specific things happened, science is in opposition to the Bible.

[SpiritWalker]

I don't have to explain the big-bang theory I pressume, Booms? But anyway the substances which made it possible all had to come from somewhere, many, like me, believe this was from God. Also the chance of that certain event, the creation of our universe was so freaking tiny it couldn't have been coincidence. A little story of how it couldn't have been coincidence.

At physics my teacher once explained to me that if you put a rock on a table, in theory, eventually all in the energy in the table would move to point of the rock and sling it into the air (molecules keep passing of energy to each other). The chance that this would happen was 0,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000114342533 a really really abstract number, so I said "it'll never happen", and I think you can all agree on that it will never happen, even though 'in theory' it's possible..

That's how slim a chance, and under such abstract conditions the universe was created.

Bible was written by 'man', 'man' is fallable. I could mention a hell lot of things that contradict each other in the bible, that's why I don't belive in the bible, but I do believe in a God.

Edit: damn you for making me participate :rant: :p

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Explain. You've probably backed up this statement before, but I either missed that thread of have completely forgotten what you said. And since the rest of your argument essentially depends on there being a prime mover it is essential that you prove your point.


At this moment, I'm about to leave work after a long week - please go research the old threads - I must have explained it a thousand times. I'll do so again if you cant find it, later on.


Umm....there are some definite cases in which science was in opposition with The Bible, which is the word of God. Example: The Earth was created in seven days. Unless you take some artistic license and say that these "days" were actually long periods of time during which specific things happened, science is in opposition to the Bible.

THere is no contradiction, as scripture is not to be interpreted as a literal 7 day cycle. The old testament mentions different ages of creation.

Spiritwalker - Scripture was written by men, but guided by the spirit of God, which can reside in men.

[Booms]

Haha, sorry Spiritwalker.

But if you had that rock sitting there, for trillions and trillions of years, who says all that energy isn't going to move into the rock?

[Booms]

THere is no contradiction, as scripture is not to be interpreted as a literal 7 day cycle. The old testament mentions different ages of creation.

So then scripture can be interpreted? So then why do you still consider sodomy a sin? During the time that the Bible was written (by men), there was a practical reason to say that sodomy is bad, but now in modern times I don't see how the act of sodomy can justifiably be considered sinful.

Spiritwalker - Scripture was written by men, but guided by the spirit of God, which can reside in men.

So therefore it is prone to error? If it is, then it is impossible to use scripture as a source.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Haha, sorry Spiritwalker.

But if you had that rock sitting there, for trillions and trillions of years, who says all that energy isn't going to move into the rock?

Where did the rock come from? Where did the particles come from that created the rock? Science does a great job of "explaining" the creation of the universe through the Big Bang, however they purposely neglect, and can over no explanation for, what created their explanation.

It's been offered before, and quickly rejected, that matter would have had to spontaniously "appear" into existence in order for that matter to have been there in the first place. The matter, pulled by gravity, over trillions of years created that big ball of mass which eventually exploded into what is now our universe. Yet where did that matter come from? What created the matter. The is no currently known, or even suggested(in such a way as not to make you giggle like a little girl) reason for WHERE that matter came from, how it came to be, or what created the matter.

[Booms]

Where did the rock come from? Where did the particles come from that created the rock? Science does a great job of "explaining" the creation of the universe through the Big Bang, however they purposely neglect, and can over no explanation for, what created their explanation.

It's been offered before, and quickly rejected, that matter would have had to spontaniously "appear" into existence in order for that matter to have been there in the first place. The matter, pulled by gravity, over trillions of years created that big ball of mass which eventually exploded into what is now our universe. Yet where did that matter come from? What created the matter. The is no currently known, or even suggested(in such a way as not to make you giggle like a little girl) reason for WHERE that matter came from, how it came to be, or what created the matter.

The creation of the universe isn't my forte, to say the least, but I can always throw in my two cents...

I have little knowledge of the Big Bang, so I can't say to much about it, but spontaneously appearing matter seems just as feasible as God making everything.

[SpiritWalker]

Haha, sorry Spiritwalker.

But if you had that rock sitting there, for trillions and trillions of years, who says all that energy isn't going to move into the rock?
Well that is the theory, and that's why there is a chance it could happen, but it would never happen, because the energy wants to stay, and stays mostly neatly, divided over the whole table, unless something helped it a bit.

You get the picture now, non?

Spiritwalker - Scripture was written by men, but guided by the spirit of God, which can reside in men.
But how man interpreted the info given by the 'spirit of God' could have been miss-interpreted, that was my point.
I could give an example, but I am afraid that the meaning will get lost in my translation of it. It involves that people used to think that the universe revolves around earth, because it said so in the bible, they took its meaning too literally.

[Eiger]

Where did the rock come from? Where did the particles come from that created the rock? Science does a great job of "explaining" the creation of the universe through the Big Bang, however they purposely neglect, and can over no explanation for, what created their explanation.
I've always wondered the same thing myself. And frankly I know relatively little about physics or the big bang. I did come across this website though which offers some explanation:

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_help/h_glossary.html) for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html

It's that the universe was only a few millimeters big that provides the wow factor and explains a few things perhaps.

This link also offers some explanation, though this portion raises questions about why the whole thing happened:

One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.
About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

[Eiger]

Spiritwalker - Scripture was written by men, but guided by the spirit of God, which can reside in men.
And that's the big assumption. Could as well been written by men, guided by themselves and a variety of ulterior motives.

[Bartleby]

Physics and logic has shown that you can't get something from nothing, there must be an infinite source, something that always has been and always will be.

[bleachy]

Physics and logic has shown that you can't get something from nothing, there must be an infinite source, something that always has been and always will be.


That is my belief, that the Universe has always been here, and always will be here.

The problem with us humans, is that, we need an explanation for everything. You might say that we are too curious, so we have to create stories to explain the unexplainable(like, the bible).

[Bartleby]

And science has shown the universe is not infinite and came from a finite point a la the Big Bang. The source of the big bang is the question yet to be answered. You might as well believe the earth is flat because it's as valid a belief.

[Eiger]

That is my belief, that the Universe has always been here, and always will be here.


While there's a ton of questions surrounding how the big bang happened and what existed before the universe was created, there is really very little doubt that it had a beginning and is finite rather than infinite. Check out the last link in my post above.

[Eiger]

And science has shown the universe is not infinite and came from a finite point a la the Big Bang. The source of the big bang is the question yet to be answered. You might as well believe the earth is flat because it's as valid a belief.
Agreement for Bartleby and Eiger! I just love it when that happens!

[Coltaine]

Physics and logic has shown that you can't get something from nothing, there must be an infinite source, something that always has been and always will be.

Wrong.
Physics has shown, that you can create something from nothing. It happens all the time in vacuum and is measurable. Positron-Electron-creation (or something like it. Only know the german word for it).
Due to the Unceartenty Relation (dx*dpx=h) you can brake some laws of physics for a short period of time. You might even get a semistable system!
you could create a positron-Electron-Pair from nothing and in the event, that you also add an impuls along a trajectory, you get a semistable "antihydrogen".
It might be possible that this is what happend during the big bang. That we got an semistable system.

John D. Barrow wrote a book which also has this theory as a part i belive. not totally sure, because i heard it in one of his lectures at my institute. And please forgive me my bad english. Its kinda hard if you don't know the english terms. kind of like guesswork.

[Bartleby]

I've heard the theory, but even Barlow admitted it is purely theoretical and conjectural; or in lay man's termsit is not scientific fact.

[Bartleby]

Agreement for Bartleby and Eiger! I just love it when that happens!
That's like the third time this year... I'm going to have to go buy a lotto ticket.

[Coltaine]

That by this way the universe was created. Sure that is in no way clear.

But the Positron-Electron generation from nothing happens and is detectable als slight variations in wavelenghs of emítted light.

[Bartleby]

Okay, but then quantam physics deals in the subatomic, whereby they believe at that level the laws of physics don't always apply and a sort of chaos takes over. You're talking about a universe. The matter necessary to create what we have today is probably incalculable. So in effect you're taking a bigger leap of faith then most people who worship a god or gods.

[Sage the Mage]

The basis for life having an objective value resides in the beliefs that a god exists, and things more alike to the god have a greater value.

No god = no objective value.
God exists = the possibility of an objective value with the aformentioned critera.

You'd still need to determine the properties of the god.

/cue the AoA references, most likely to A Crituque of Pure Reason

/cue my assertion that these questions have an unobtainable answer.

[Coltaine]

Where did the rock come from? Where did the particles come from that created the rock? Science does a great job of "explaining" the creation of the universe through the Big Bang, however they purposely neglect, and can over no explanation for, what created their explanation.

It's been offered before, and quickly rejected, that matter would have had to spontaniously "appear" into existence in order for that matter to have been there in the first place. The matter, pulled by gravity, over trillions of years created that big ball of mass which eventually exploded into what is now our universe. Yet where did that matter come from? What created the matter. The is no currently known, or even suggested(in such a way as not to make you giggle like a little girl) reason for WHERE that matter came from, how it came to be, or what created the matter.

Just wanted to give one possible solution to that problem.
We always though that energy stays the same. Non is created or destroyed. That is not the case anymore. Same goes for matter. I give that is properbly isn't THE answer. But the quantum world and the astronomical scale world are tied more strongly than many belive. To understand the big bang, you have to look into the high energy physics, because that were the laws that applied at that time.
It has already been shown, that particles as large as 60 C-atoms can behave to the laws of quantum physics. The next step is to look if viruses may also behave quantummechanical.
Quantummechanics are also not that chaotical as they might appear. They follow laws a properbility and are very good to calculate with.
You have problems with one particel. When you get more and more, the behavior of said partecels can be easiely foretold.

[Unreg!stered]

Everything is relative. Everything varies depending on the point of view. To an ant, the queen of the hive's life is worth a great deal, enough so that the worker ants will sacrifice themselves to protect the queen. To the Crusader from the Middle Ages, the non Christians who controlled the holy land had little worth to their life. From my point of view the lives of my friends and family have great worth.

I believe that no life has innate worth, that is, no life is worth anymore than any other life by itself. A human's life is worth as much as the life as a dog. However, life can gain worth through others. As I said above, I think the lives of my friends and family is worth a great deal, but to someone half way around the world there lives are essentially meaningless. In a similar fashion my life is worth something from my friends and family's point of view. Life gains value through interaction with others. One cannot give their life worth just by themselves, someone else gives their life meaning and value.

Think of it this way, if you were to die tomorrow there would mostly certainly be people who mourned your passing. If you were to some how get hurt, or sick, there would be those who are worried about your well being, just like you would worry if it happened to someone you care about. That is what gives life worth. To use an old comparison, life is like a candle. When one expires in a room the area around it becomes dimmer. Just as when a person or a beloved pet dies, it is not just the loss of one life, it is also the effect it has on so many others.

[Ryu]

sage, thats flawed logic, a virus is worth the same as a human if theres no God? There is value no matter what otherwise we'd just wipe out every other species because hey, they dont mean anything, so why let them use resources

[Bartleby]

Coltaine please source.
That being said if assuming that every thing that you have said is a scientific fact how big is a 60-C atom relative to the massive amount of matter required to fill the universe? You're still talking about a subject at the atomic level when the amount of matter required to produce the universe is infinitessimaly (spelling?) large. Not to mention that there hasn't been even one stable experiment which resulted in permanance of existence, another requirement for creating the universe. The leap of faith required in the explanation you presented is larger than any belief in a diety.
I can't go into it right now, but I'll come back to it later. See y'all monday.

[Sage the Mage]

sage, thats flawed logic, a virus is worth the same as a human if theres no God? There is value no matter what otherwise we'd just wipe out every other species because hey, they dont mean anything, so why let them use resources

I don't have flawed logic :p

Just because an objective value wouldn't exist doesn't mean a relative wouldn't.

[Essex]

I just don't belive in a god... why do I have to have some huge *** philosphical, scientest tested, mother approved, ****ing reason. I don't belive in a god... its' not real it's a ****ing fantasy...


let me rephrase.


there may be a god. Hell I'd wager that something started all this even if it was some weird alternate reality science project.

But I do not think that the god that started all this, or whatever it was, would spend all his ****ing time worrying about what we are doing. It's not phelps it's not backwoods TN that makes me think this way... you can't say that God in the bible isn't extremely picky in what he wants you to do. It's not just the christian one either, Islam, Judeaism, hell all religions have all these rules.


I don't think someone who made, controlls, and substains the universe can be bothered with our little problems.

I don't feel like backing this up, I don't have any sources, in fact I've forgotten about half of what I typed in this post.

I just wish that when it came to policy in this and other countries that ANY MENTION OF GOD WHATSOEVER resulted in automatic termination from office, you then forfeit your right to vote ever again, and you can never run for office again.

If/when i get rich i'm buying my own island and doing that very thing.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

So then scripture can be interpreted? So then why do you still consider sodomy a sin? During the time that the Bible was written (by men), there was a practical reason to say that sodomy is bad, but now in modern times I don't see how the act of sodomy can justifiably be considered sinful.


Within any given text, the epistemological and hermenutical options are given in that actual text itself, which reason will correctly guide to offer the correct interpretation. As for sodomy being a sin, we see it as a form of "disordered love". Love of God, love of neighbor and self.. all actions are towards these ends. Sodomy, like premarital sex, is purely recreational by nature. While sex has its unitive and recreative properities, it is also ordered to the union of wholesome, lasting relationships, as well as the possibility of children.


So therefore it is prone to error? If it is, then it is impossible to use scripture as a source.

Ironically, in the book of Peter, it says "the interpretation of scripture is never a matter solely for the individual". Furthermore, my research is on "reason and desire", in which I argue, by means of Kant's texts as well as a plethora of other authors, that correct reason is employed only by those who are willing to sweat it out for the truth, and who live ordered lives. Remember, those who live like animals, think like animals. Those who live in accord with the natural order, are better disposed to heed the stringent demands of reason.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

But how man interpreted the info given by the 'spirit of God' could have been miss-interpreted, that was my point.
I could give an example, but I am afraid that the meaning will get lost in my translation of it. It involves that people used to think that the universe revolves around earth, because it said so in the bible, they took its meaning too literally.

Yes, this has been your main theme for quite some time. Can you trust your own actions, let alone others? Unlikely. Yes, humanity is flawed. All we have is reason, which is immutible in essence, and immutuble in expression if we heed its demands. However, God has his hand in this. Our spirits are imbued with his essence in Christ - the fundamental tenet of christianity.
The main thing you have to ask yourself is - If you believe in God, which you do, what's at stake? What ramifications does that have for your own life? Think that over.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Eiger, in terms of the scientific inquiry, Dragon has you pinned to the wall. You can discuss empirical phenomena all you want, but eventually there is this metaphysical and existential stumbling block you always trip over. You MUST go beyond this, or you'll remain a hamster in a treadmill.

And that's the big assumption. Could as well been written by men, guided by themselves and a variety of ulterior motives.

It was written by men - how else could it have been written (unless on mount sainai, but unlikely, by means of the cultural writing style). Further, there are a million reasons why we do the things we do, and alot are selfish and motivated by fear. Hegel tried to create a "pure" philosophy in the 19th century, and it failed miserably - we have to come to grips with human nature. However, that being said, our brokenness is all the more reason to look to the divine author. It would also help if you put the word of God into practise, that would give you the "proof you need". So, live the question - that's where you and Bartleby differ.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

That is my belief, that the Universe has always been here, and always will be here.


An eternal physical universe is folly. This is because in a state of eternity - no beginning and end, there can be no change in anything, no movement, no definiton of bodies. The universe started, and it will end.


The problem with us humans, is that, we need an explanation for everything. You might say that we are too curious, so we have to create stories to explain the unexplainable(like, the bible).

That's not a problem. Rather, its further indication of the kind of beings we are - unable to find completeness in the physical universe, and yearning for something more. Switchfoot wrote a song about that.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The basis for life having an objective value resides in the beliefs that a god exists, and things more alike to the god have a greater value.


Yea, sounds like what I've been preaching for a while. Even without reaching God as the end of the inquiry, we'll touch on inherent values along the way.


You'd still need to determine the properties of the god.


THis is the first intelligent thing I've seen you post in a while. Properties is inconsistent however, as properties are subject to a composite being. Attributes would be better, as its a more open ended term. The attributes, and our options for viable belief are discovered on our inquiry, starting from data, filtered through reason. Takes time, but in the end, there's no going back. Yes, please do read the critique. A new text I'll have you read in this case is "the mystical theology" by Dionysius. Don't be frightened by the title - its not theology, but rather lessons in reason and capacity.
BTW - no answer is unobtainable - otherwise, it would not be an answer, and would not be a question.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Emotional Side:

I just don't belive in a god... why do I have to have some huge *** philosphical, scientest tested, mother approved, ****ing reason. I don't belive in a god... its' not real it's a ****ing fantasy...



Side that vaugely resembles reason:

let me rephrase.


there may be a god. Hell I'd wager that something started all this even if it was some weird alternate reality science project.


The second is ok. Why not replace the first drivel with this new thinking? Whenever I get depressed or angry, etc, I ask myself what could possibly cause it. After that, I calm right down :). Give it a go.


But I do not think that the god that started all this, or whatever it was, would spend all his ****ing time worrying about what we are doing.


You've been watching too much anime. The only possibility would be God would already know what's up, all the time. God does not think - thats an action of composing and dividing concepts. God is utterly simple, unchanging, pure "is-ness". He wills all into being, and cannot help but be concerned about the smallest detail, by means of the latter attribute of his omniscence and omnipresence.


It's not phelps it's not backwoods TN that makes me think this way... you can't say that God in the bible isn't extremely picky in what he wants you to do. It's not just the christian one either, Islam, Judeaism, hell all religions have all these rules.


Laws are rules to fools, and guidelines for the wise. Christinanty was never "aganist anything", but rather, it is "for something". That is to say, it offers guidelines for us so that we can better receive the Spirit of God, as we do have a choice to accept or reject. Go see that new movie - I Robot. There's some subtle references in there.


I don't think someone who made, controlls, and substains the universe can be bothered with our little problems.


THis was answered earlier. The probelm is only in your own mind.


I don't feel like backing this up, I don't have any sources, in fact I've forgotten about half of what I typed in this post.

I just wish that when it came to policy in this and other countries that ANY MENTION OF GOD WHATSOEVER resulted in automatic termination from office, you then forfeit your right to vote ever again, and you can never run for office again.


Hopefully the day will never come when people in office will impose their inability to come to grips with life on the lives of other people. That's called a dictatorship. Only what happens now, is that we've had about 200+ years of climitization to this new notion of "tolerance". People are enslaved, and they're oblivious to it.


If/when i get rich i'm buying my own island and doing that very thing.

Even if that were to be so, we take our shyt with us, wherever we go. You'd be cursing God every time you couldn't pick a bananna off a tree.

[bleachy]

An eternal physical universe is folly. This is because in a state of eternity - no beginning and end, there can be no change in anything, no movement, no definiton of bodies. The universe started, and it will end.

Before you state things as fact, you may want to back your statement up with evidence, and by evidence, I mean real evidence, not a the bible or some theory of yours.

[Coltaine]

C60 interference (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v401/n6754/abs/401680a0_r.html&dynoptions=)
States there that Fulleren is almost a classical object.
the experiment (http://www.quantenphysik-schule.de/fullerene.htm)
German site with some english.

If you look at the CERN (http://www.cern.ch/) site. you might find the planed experiment i was talking about. A prof. i can't remember his name is planning to find out if viruses behave quantum mechanical.

The Positron electron 'generation effect' is an effect of the quantumelectrodynamic. if you search here (http://www.google.com/search?q=quantum+electrodynamic+positron+electron&hl=de&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N) you should find something. It was mentioned in my quantumphysics lecture, but i'm not advanced enough in my studies to have heard the quantumtheory related theory lectures. You might find mentioning here (the script of the lecturethe script of the lecture (http://maren.desy.de/skripten/Physik_III_WS_2000.html) ) but i'm not sure. And it is german.
Hope this is enough :sleep: the search was quiete timeconsuming.

[Ryu]

hmm aoa has a lot more in common with me here then in politics heh, too many posts to read all now sry but yeah i dont need a reason to believe in God, I just do because of what I feel and have experienced

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Before you state things as fact, you may want to back your statement up with evidence, and by evidence, I mean real evidence, not a the bible or some theory of yours.

I believe I just did by stating a principle. Affix your glasses, or have someone more intelligent explain it to you.

[Sage the Mage]

BTW - no answer is unobtainable - otherwise, it would not be an answer, and would not be a question.

There was a guy who died before writing existed. What was his name?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

He knew his name :). Human beings are limited in terms of data due to our bodies, but not in terms of reason. The best lesson you can learn sage, is to accept your "littleness" as a human being. I speak in terms of concepts and principles, and you always bring it down to empiricism. That's like mixing oil and water.