"Nicholas Smith" - Emissions Trading Scheme & Climate Change

[Globalonlinecars]

I support this, well said! Take a look a the video on the same subject. type into YouTube The 2011 Emission Rule Video Petition - Uncut or type in Globalonlinecars and go to the Channel. :)



[Itseasyifyoutry]

"When he came up against a wall---the wall of jargon that mystifies science and withholds it's treasures from the rest of us, for example, or the wall around our souls that keeps us from taking the revelations of science to heart---when he came up against one of those topless old walls, he would like some latter-day Joshua, use all of his many strengths to bring it down."

[Itseasyifyoutry]

...Usually at that point we'd be conjugating a set of stern questions for vladimir putin.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

The first objection to the modern theory of evolution was first posed by Pierre Lecompte du Nouy in a 1947 book called "Human Destiny" and is regularly rediscovered about once every half decade. If you'd like I can send you a private message that outlines the argument, the basic logical fallacies and the response by the global scientific community. It will take more than 500 characters.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

there are 23000 thermonuclear weapons in the world and only about 2300 cities on the planet with populations over 100,000.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry I'm presuming you suggesting that it is a bad thing for humans to have this many bombs, and worse if they were all let off.

If it's a solely material world - thus one without morality, there's nothing bad about these things - nor good. In this view, if all life was wiped from the earth by nuclear weapons, the universe would just revert to what it was before life evolved - something which will happen anyway with the heat death of the universe. So what if it happens sooner?

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso I guess the misunderstanding you seem to have is that I believe in a purely physical universe and that I'm trying to convince you to join my materialist religion. But this is not the case, I'm saying we don't know, we know very little, therefore it is all the more dangerous to encourage people pretend to know fundamental things that we don't really know "All our science measured against reality is pitiful and childlike, yet it is the most precious thing we have" -Einstein.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry No I haven't pegged you as fully fledged materialist...though you have been arguing for materialism. I agree we know very little, and say that in a production I am working on...

A difficulty with this however is that evolutionists generally are not so humble and assert they 'know', and that anyone who questions them is a total thicko worthy of any abuse that can be thought of...

To 'know' we must 'believe/trust' etc as belief is prior to knowledge...

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso I maintain I'm not trying to argue for materialism, I'm arguing for rationalism...There is more than enough evidence for the existence of physical things, but I don't deny the possibility of non-physical or trans-physical things I merely ask where's the evidence? "To 'know' we must 'believe/trust' etc as belief is prior to knowledge..." I'm not sure I fully understand this...Why and how in your opinion is belief/trust or pretending to know--- prerequisite to knowledge?

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry What do you mean by 'rationalism'?

To know anything we have to have faith in our senses and reason.

And then to know most else of what we 'know' we have to 'believe' what others tell us. In terms of the stuff we think we know, probably most of it we can't personally verify. Do you know how to verify that the earth goes around the sun? Likely not. Very few can. We 'believe' it as a result of 'trusting' what others tell us.

I 'believe' in England - but I've never seen it.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso A very small minority of people contest the existence of England, and clearly none of them have any substantial evidence to disprove it's existence. While consensus is not a purely fact based exercise, science and scientific method is founded creative experiments and a thorough awareness of the limits of our senses, reason, and the human physiological bias; an unyeilding respect for the truth; scientific consensus is all of these strategies verified and peer reviewed on a global scale.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry My only point was that I 'believe' that England exists on the basis of what others have told me and thus I know it exists. But my 'knowledge' relies on my belief in what others have said...& that I haven't be conned...

Take another contentious issue: 911. What conspiracy theory should I believe? The 'official' one or the 'unofficial' one? One has the backing of the establishment & is simply assumed by many. But perhaps the majority have been conned. What do we actually 'know'?

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso Whatever this realm is, there are subjectively knowable things at least in a human context...Take math for example, or numbers, almost all people are able to count and quantify things in the world around them, so we don't objectively know that there are two apples on the table, because we only have a 3D-4D human point of reference, but as humans we subjectively know that there are two apples on the table because we all agree, and we all care about the truth because we like apples.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry '...science and scientific method is founded creative experiments and a thorough awareness of the limits of our senses, reason, and the human physiological bias; an unyeilding respect for the truth... verified and peer reviewed on a global scale.'

Sounds great...but it aen't so.

In a world without God - which is the world presupposed by the ruling paradigm in science - there is no universal truth.

If you haven't been to the UK you have to 'believe' it is.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso "a world without God - which is the world presupposed by the ruling paradigm in science - there is no universal truth." This is simply not true, science does not make any claims about God's existence or non-existence, or about God's nature. What you are saying is that you believe in God and a certain nature of the divine based on the presupposition that life MUST be meaningless otherwise, not evidence "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be." - Albert Einstein

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso When we say "It is my belief that the movie starts at 5:00" we use the word specifically to imply uncertainty. But when we say "I believe in a Christian God" we use the word specifically to imply certain knowledge of the nature of one of the most mysterious and important questions ever asked. Why not call a spade a spade? In my opinion the word belief is used in a very curious and almost deceptive way by religion. Or am I simply over-thinking these oddly antonymous homonyms?

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry There are different levels of 'belief'. There is belief about things and there is belief 'in' or on the basis of which, commitment is made. I can believe a train is going to a certain destination but that belief does not get me to it on the train. For this to happen I need to put my belief 'about' the train into action and commit myself to the train. Same goes for the degree of commitment we make to people. Same goes for God. Biblical faith in God is commitment to God.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry This question of belief is illustrated by the subject of this video. People come to believe for whatever reason, that global warming - latterly 'climate change' - is world and life threatening. They then commit themselves to it and proceed to ram it down everyones throats, stealing money of them, and passing draconian laws, so as to carry out their saving of mankind. This is an illustration of a misguided belief...

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso I think you might be on to something there. People come to believe in man-made global warming out of the fear of climate change. So they jump to a conclusion based on fear and apparantly shakey evidence. So this fear...that many liberal minded people have learned about from early childhood...despite the lack of solid evidence is the very foundation of their dogmatic belief. Not evidence...But fear, fear trumps evidence. Fear apparantly trumps what we know, and forces us to believe.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry I didn't say people believe in global warming out of fear. Some may but not necessarily all...

Most I think are convinced by conmen who do not present all the data...

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso What was the scariest thing you were ever told about as a child by an adult? Did that adult have knowledge of that scary thing? or did they simply pretend to know that this scary thing really exists? and decided to let you-- an impressionable child-- in on this presupposition out of their own fear passed down from their own elders.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry 'What was the scariest thing you were ever told about as a child by an adult?' Wouldn't have a clue...

Virtually everything we think we know, we learn from others, rightly or wrongly...

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso Is it right to teach an impressionable child about HELL. Something not one human being can provide any evidence for aside from some ancient texts that also happen to claim the existence of a talking snake. Is it really fair to put this kind of FEAR into the hearts of our CHILDREN, not because we have anything close to true logical basis for our belief in it's existence, but simply because we fear it so much ourselves. Fear trumps evidence, and forces us to believe. Love is understanding.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry There's nothing wrong with fear per sae - only an idiot would not fear somethings!

If there's a Creator of the universe, who's a moral being, who's made a moral universe, then real right & wrong & justice exist. Cosmic accounting then is expected with wrongdoers being punished. I suppose you think criminals should be punished, imprisoned even? Why not on a cosmic scale? Jesus accepted the existence of hell and thus I do. Kids should be taught about reality...

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso "If there's a Creator of the universe, who's a moral being, who's made a moral universe, then real right & wrong & justice exist." Your sense of logic states: Humans can not be moral beings unless they exist in a universe created by a moral creator. Following this logic, a creator can not be a moral being unless it exists in a realm creator by a moral creator creator. If we say God always existed why not save a step and say that the universe always existed.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso Why must we presuppose these questions? If we don't know God's true nature and existence, if we're ---honest--- about this not-knowing: This does NOT say "we believe God does not exist" it simply says "we DON'T KNOW if God exists" and we certainly don't know anything about his nature. Do you really think that this honest state of withholding judgement gives us free license to live corrupted and immoral lives? We don't know the nature of God, thus we do our best with what we know and feel.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso Suppose a speeding car were headed to the intersection in front of you around a blind corner. Would you be LESS likely to stop at that blind corner intersection if you DIDN'T know if a car was comming? I think most people stop at blind corner intersections regardless of whether there they know a car is comming or if they don't know. I doubt many of us would -pretend- to know a car is comming, fewer of us would likely make an unevidenced assertion about the colour or make of the car.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso I agree kids should be taught about reality, about the things we know, and the things we don't know. Lying to them, and telling them that we know something that we don't know simply because it seems ideal, and easy to explain is in my opinion both immoral and vain. Case in point: "The Norwegian-born suspect comes from a well-to-do family, and his Facebook page suggests he's a Christian fundamentalist, and once belonged to the right-wing Progress Party." From CBC news on Norway attacks.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry We'll have to wait and see about this shooter. Apparently his facebook page was only started 5 days ago with the details like you've equoted on it.

One thing for absolute sure. His actions are polar opposite of those consistent with 'Christian fundamentalism' who accept 'you shall not murder'.

The 'right wing' of course are socialist - the whole left/right scale being a scale of socialism. A consistent Christian view of government/politics doesn't even appear on the scale.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso

It certainly wasn't the fact that he was a christian, or an atheist, or a muslim...I wouldn't claim that. It was the likelyhood that he suffered from malevolent credulity...Fundamentalist Christian is just one of the other symptoms

Traditionally, the Left includes progressives, social liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists and some anarchists. The Right includes conservatives, libertarians, plutocrats, reactionaries, capitalists, monarchists, nationalists and fascists.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry 'The Right includes conservatives, libertarians, plutocrats, reactionaries, capitalists, monarchists, nationalists and fascists.'

And that just shows how utterly absurd, and fraudlent, and intentionally obscurantist, the scale is...

Totalitalitarian regimes on both ends of the scale. lumped in with people who believe in minimal or no government...

It's a total, croc and not in any way helpful...

I'm not on it.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso Not all of those are regime types, for instance socialism can exist in both a democratic style and totalitarian style...Norway for instance currently exists as a democratic socialism but it is argued that the term socialism has been applied to what are actually far-right fascist regimes as a means of appealing to the population of said country...Stalin for example.. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso Emphasis on the cooperative part and people working together idea, which is I believe a cornerstone of Leftist ideals. The word socialism is McCartyized, people are raised to be afraid of it...Probably because their parents were afraid of it too. Most modern democracies including the most economically competitive actually have at least partially socialist systems... most governments moderate between socialism and capitolism. Makes life worth living but keeps people working making progress

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso I'm don't adhere to superficial devisive labels, I am a human being. You are one too. People need to put their beliefs aside and work together, because none of us KNOW much, and it might be a very lonely existence without each other. We need to to celebrate the deepest uniqueness in each of us and throw away the trivial differences especially if the impede the former. What is more important, Christ's name or the Peace he represents along with all peaceful non-christians?

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso Peace is more important than beliefs, love is more important than beliefs, unity of all people is more important than beliefs, this is what every human being should teach to their kids, we'd have no more 9/11s, we'd have no more suicide bombings, we'd have all perhaps aquired the humility to admit we don't know enough to hurt or kill each other, we don't know if God is, if there is a heaven or a hell, or a tomorrow, compassion is evolved survival in cooperative species.

[puppetsock]

@Itseasyifyoutry

You believe all that, right?

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@puppetsock Yes, I do believe all that...In the same way that I believe it might rain tomorrow, or I believe I'll be eating dinner at around 6:00pm...I use the word to indicate uncertainty. As opposed to pretending to have empirical answers to fundamental questions about reality. What I am advocating for is incredulity, humility, and reservation of judgement. Google: tim harford trial, error.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

All I'm really saying is we as a human race need to get better at withholding judgement, waiting for evidence, investigating...Being scientific.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry Commendable attitude...but there are some things that are knowable, though rejected because of the implications that go with them.

ie, if coded information always comes from a mind, then the genetic info comes from a mind that clearly must have built the things that contain the genetic info. "Wooooo...I don't like that thought, therefore will deny (against all evidence) that coded infro always comes from a mind."

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso We know that human coded information comes from a mind, but we --do not know-- if all coded information comes from a mind, we --do not know-- if there other ways that coded information can arise. Human made coded information is the result of human creation. However, non-human coded information is evidence for some kind of non-human creation, we can't as scientists be any more specific than this, we can't jump to the conclusion that humanoid-like intelligence MUST be the only possibility.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry In all our experience coded information comes from a mind. There's not one counter-example. Therefore wherever coded information is found, we've found evidence of a mind being at work. (This is the basis for the SETI project.) It's not jumping to conclusions at all.

Gravity makes things fall down. But...perhaps sometimes it makes things fall up. Interesting idea but not supported by the evidence. It's not jumping to conclusions to say gravity always makes things fall down.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso Most cars are red, therefore all cars are red? Most grass is green, therefore all grass is green? Most fish live in salt water, therefore all fish live in salt water? Most of the normal matter in the universe is hydrogen, therefore all matter in the universe must be hydrogen? Specific claims can't scientifically be made based on generalized information, we need direct evidence for every claim.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso Disproving something scientifically is much more difficult than proving something scientifically. Because we can always imagine new possibilities, disproving God is currently impossible, because the very described nature of God is specifically undetectable or unfalsifiable by normal scientific means. There is an invisible dragon in my garage that is unaffected by the material world, and when he breathes fire it does not effect the physical world so you can't prove that he does not exist.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry 'However, non-human coded information is evidence for some kind of non-human creation, we can't as scientists be any more specific than this...'

Perhaps so - though by using the term 'creation' you've included an intelligence, and we can deduce to some degree how intelligent this Creator is.

As a scientist I can't say anything about love, aesthetic appreciation, morality, & a host of other things that are among the most important of things. As a holistic human though I can.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso I use the word creation meaning "making of" not necessarily implying a living or intelligent creator but simply some kind of sequence that resulted in the creation of coded information. Most fish live in salt water, but this is not evidence that all fish must live in salt water, if we had never in our experience encountered a fresh water fish until now, our previous knowledge of all other fish does not specify this fish's habitat in any distinct way.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso So we may have evidence that this newly discovered fish is in fact a type fish, because it has many of the same features that define a fish, because it has gills it likely lives in some kind of water. Physical evidence for generalized characteristics. But if we want to get more specific, if we want to say what type of water, or climate of environment, diet, whether it lives in deep or shallow waters, we need much more specific evidence before specific claims can be made.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso Now suppose an alien spacecraft crashed into the earth today. Would it be folly of us as scientists to derrive that this spacecraft might NOT have been made by an intelligent being? It actually depends on the nature of the spacecraft, if the spacecraft can breathe, has eyes, and appears to be made of organic matter, this is evidence that the spacecraft was constructed via organic reproduction. i.e it is a living thing. If it is made of metal and has a drivers seat...

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso Again, by using the word "creation" I mean: "making of" it does not necessarily include intelligence, that would be an unscientific presupposition. So I am not including an intelligence nor am I actively suppressing that possibility, if specific evidence arose that possibility would have reason to be considered. Sciences such as evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, anthropology and neuroscience study love, aesthetic appreciation, morality etc.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

I hear what you are saying though, there is an underlying fear that I think everyone shares that If the world is only material, if we even consider this as a possibility-Where then is the absolute meaning and purpose in human life? Why in the night sky are the lights hung? why is the earth moving 'round the sun, floating in the vaccum with no purpose not a one? Why is life made only for to end, why do I do all this waiting then? Why this frightened part of me that's fated to pretend?

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry The reality is that if the world is only material, and there are plenty of things that tell us it's not - then there's actually no meaning or purpose or morality to anything. It's not at all surprising that the prospect of such a world is fear inducing.

But then the prospect of a God who is/has a standard by which we're required to live is fear inducing also. That's why so many either deny God, or want a tame/toothless God of their own making, which won't call them to account.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso I mean no offense by this, but you are rather arbitrarily declaring there would be no meaning if we are just made of matter? The presupposition is that -the scientific community- knows EVERYTHING about the nature of matter that it CERTAINLY has no writ-in-explicitly-humanoid-an­cient-text therefor (presup#2) holds no meaning to us--- When in fact we know very little about the nature of matter let alone dark matter and dark energy which comprise a huge proportion of the observable universe.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry I'm not being arbitary at all.

If we are just matter, and come from matter doing its thing, then nothing is planned, has a purpose, is moral or immoral, has meaning. It just is. Matter is chemistry and physics. Atoms bumping together, etc.

If there is no Person behind the world who made the world for a reason and endued it with meaning, then there is no reason for the world and no meaning to it

Does 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' exist? How do you know? Who says?

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso Why do you feel you have to pretend to know that there is a God? I mean personally I don't pretend to know there is a God, and I still feel that my life has value, I know that life is short, that we're only here for awhile, that we are very very small people in a vast and apparantly unforgiving universe where there exists at least 100 stars for each grain of sand on this tiny piece of debris called earth. What if all we'll ever really have is each other, and the present moment in time?

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry I don't 'pretend to know that there is a God'. I'm persuaded by the evidence and have committed myself to the God who has revealed himself to us through the things he has made, and by words and 'embodiment' in his world.

Yes, we're small in relation to the stars, but if the Biblical view of man is correct, which I believe it is, then each of us are of greater value than all the stars put together. Why? Because we're made in the image and likeness of our Creator. Stars aren't.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso While the existence of England is verified by the vast majority of the human species + the royal family....It is safe to say that you are believing in it without actually having first hand experience...i.e. we are pretending to know there is a place called England. Therefore belief precedes knowledge. It could be argued in fact that all of our experience is nothing but a dream, and that everything we think we know is based founded on the notion that we -believe- we are not dreaming.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry 'Pretending' is not the right word. 'Pretending' is more believing in some that doesn't exist for some reason.

Some of course claim that everything is a dream...but they tend not to walk in front of buses...

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso well I'm agreeing with you, any claim to knowledge that we make is founded on the belief that we aren't dreaming; that this is reality; that even if it is a dream or a movie, that it is not completely chaotic, that there are certain things within this realm that are testable and knowable and constant. No one can prove that we aren't just part of some supernatural dream. But no one can disprove this either. We just have to accept that we are here and try to learn something about it.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso "The truly pious must negotiate a difficult course between the precipice of godlessness and the marsh of superstition" - Plutarch

Certainly both extremes are to be avoided, except what are they? What is godlessness? Does not the concern to avoid it's "precipice" presuppose the very issue we are to discuss? And what exactly is superstition? Is it just as some have said other people's religion? Or is there some standard by which we can detect what constitutes superstition?

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry Well...I take 'godlessness' to be the denial of God, & to live as though he doesn't exist to tell us how to live.

Re superstition...& is there a standard to detect it by? Of coures the 'by what stardard?' applies to everything, not just superstition. In a materialist world there aen't no standard. Within a biblical world there is. The Creator is & has spoken, so we take his word as the standard. And reason has a part to play - '"Come now let us reason together", says the Lord.'

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso So we can all agree that there are two apples on the table, we can all agree that England exists. And while this can never be truly objective knowledge, it is the kind of subjective knowledge that can validated and valued by all human beings, and maybe a few parrots and border collies. As far as we been able to test in recent history we have not yet been able to substantially divide two fish and 5 small loaves of barely bread amoungst 5000 people. So we trust that counting is important.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe in the country of England exists as part of the sovereign United Kingdom--and those give or take fifty-three odd obese teenage boys living in their parent's basements in southern Kansas who's alcoholic parents took them out of school in grade three because they disagreed with the science teacher- As a result they have never heard of England. Vast consensus and first physical evidence verify England's existence.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso Most will agree England exists and there are two apples on the table. Very few will disagree, especially if they get a piece of apple for a correct answer. So humans, being only human...Can at least subjectively know a humanly meaningful truth about the apples; England. Now, is there the same kind of consensus when we ask the global population about the nature of that which is divine? Is believing in England equally as superstitious as believing in God? Which is more credulous?

[Itseasyifyoutry]

16 percent (1.1 billion people) in the world are non-religious, it is the fastest growing religious status in the developed world. If we can find 1.1 billion people who don't believe in England, or even just ONE PERSON of the 5.73 billion religious people who can present real scientifically valid evidence for the existence and/or certain nature of God then we'll be able to safely say that belief in God or the nature of God is only as credulous as belief in England.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry Truth is not a numbers game.

No people in the world are 'non-religious'. Everyone answers religious/philosophical questions one way or the other. The questions are religious and so are the answers.

What tends to happen is that 'real scientifically valid evidence' in favour of creation, is rejected by definition by those who control the organs of science at the moment. Virtually all if not all modern science was founded by creationists. Creation is not contrary to science.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso It's true that many famous scientists believed in God, few of them maintained religious status. Many of them suffered and struggled as a result of this. It's still happening today, but instead of contesting a Sun centered solar system, the organized religions wage war on education about the founding principles of biological science, and one of the most promising lines of research in modern medicine--stem cell research...Although much progress has made in supressing the church's influence.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso If I said, there's no heaven. I'd be making an assertion...I'd also be removing the most important word in that song. Just imagine, you don't have to believe, you don't have pretend to know there is a God or that there isn't a God...You just have to imagine, is it really impossible to imagine anything? No, I don't think so, imagination can do anything you can imagine. It's easy, if you try.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

By the way, what's the matter with matter? So what if everything is just physical why is this less valuable than "non-physical" something apparantly we know nothing of, it's just an abstract concept (which exists in the brain and may just be physical, experience and state of being might be just be a complex physical state. We can't refute this without evidence.) Why is natural inferior to supernatural another abstract concept? I might argue that there is evidence for non-physical things though.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

Hey rynso, so I've seen a few of your videos and one talking point you seem to repeatedly use is something along the lines of... We need to get our morality from a creator god in order for it to have any substantial meaning. I've found this a fairly common attitude amoungst religious people, but it is something I don't quite understand. Perhaps you could elaborate. Why are humans not capable of answering moral questions in your opinion?

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry You ask, 'Why are humans not capable of answering moral questions.'

I've never suggested humans aren't capable of answering moral questions. I've said that humans on their own, without reference to a higher law and thus lawgiver, aren't capable of meaningful morality. Why is this?

Well...for starters...humans...7 billion of us...and if there's no higher law, each one decides for themselves what is 'moral'. What's 'moral' can mean anything and thus means nothing.

But wait...

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry ...what say groups of individuals, decide among themselves what is 'moral'?

Same applies. Who's to say which groups 'morality' should be followed?

Without a magnetic north external to compasses, compasses are meaningless as the needle can point in any which way. Likewise, without a moral North, the moral needle can point any which way and thus morality is meaningless.

Human beings find themselves to be moral beings. Only a worldview with a higher law/Lawgiver explains this.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso So like a compass without a magnetic pole we are incapable of determining right and wrong without higher/supernatural moral laws?

What scares me about this idea is if adopted one seems to be relinquishing themself of personal responsibility to objectively evaluate circumstances that beg moral questions/answers. The 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York seem to highlight well what damage this kind of "100% faith in a higher morality" can do, sacrificing critical faculties for belief. Yes?

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry If there's no moral North to which our moral compasses are aligned, then we may make moral decisions but we can't say they are truly, dickum, objectively, universally right or wrong, just that I think they're R or W, or that they're R or W FOR ME.

In such a situation, what you consider R and W is not binding on me because it's just your opinion about R and W. And visa versa.

When moral questions are begged, we need to ask 'By what standard' are these to be measured? More...

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso If we specify a moral law for example: "stealing is morally wrong." This law seems quite blocky and clumsy. "Joe should not steal from Bob." seems a practical idea, but what if Joe needs food to feed his family and stealing from Bob is the only option available? I think most people aware of the situation would not admonish Joe as they have objectively determined that his circumstances justify stealing. (Regardless of the law) So if we are capable of doing this, why not all the time?

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry If there is no higher law, who is to say stealing is wrong? If I think stealing is good - that it is an advantage for me to steal - why shouldn't I and who has the right to tell me I shouldn't?

Whether its for feeding my family, or to buy a mansion, is irrelevant.

A proverb (6:30) in the Bible says: 'Men do not dispise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving, yet if he is caught he must pay sevenfold, though it cost him all the wealth of his house.'

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso What I'm asking is if we are at any point allowed to use our own brains to study a complex and unique situation to determine the most morally positive sollution, where do we draw a line in the sand. It seems scripture can not possibly account for every complex scenario, and so undoubtedly we must use our own minds eventually...Which seems to indicate our minds are capable of figuring out moral truths.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry Of course we use our brains (brain I take it referring to our minds, our reasoning abilities, etc).. We use them all the time...we can't do anything else. "Come let us reason together says the Lord." etc.

Scripture does not explicitly prescribe the moral responce we should make in every situation, but it does implicitly cover all situations. And they are all covered by the 10 Commandments, the first 4 of which relate to God, and the last 6 to relationships with our fellows.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso So scripture gives us an implicit idea about what is moral and we use this in conjunction with our own perceptions and reasoning to determine what is right and wrong for any unique situation... But does this not imply that we have -some- degree of moral reasoning skills indepenent of our adherance to scripture? For example, as far as I know the modern usage of electricity is not discussed in scripture either implicitly or explicitly. How do we know that using electricity isn't sin?

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry Scripture gives both explicit & implicit guidance - the implicit being derived from & consistent with the explicit.

Re us having moral reasoning skills: Within the Biblical worldview, were are made in the image of God, to function in God's world according to the rules he has establihed the world to work by. Thus all people, no matter what philosophical position they hold, are moral creatures ('moral' meaning functioning in terms of right and wrong - however they are defined).

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso Is scripture ever wrong, is this at all possible. I think once we accept this possibility we can start to be a little more practical about issues like stem cell research, an issue I personally believe holds profound moral and logical contradictions to biblical scripture.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry Is Scripture ever wrong? Short answer, No.

What does 'practical' mean re stem cell research? That it's ok to kill some humans for research purposes?

What 'contradictions' are you referring to?

See: creation . com / stem-cells-and-genesis (remove spaces)

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso The Bible was written thousands of years ago before people even knew what a cell was; It does not ever mention cells (Obvious question's can be raised from this simple fact. Why didn't god tell us about cells? or galaxies for that matter) Stem cell research could end the suffering of millions of people. There are 150 cells in a human embryo, it has no neurons or nerves, the brain of a fly contains more than 100,000 cells. Morality should say something about human suffrage, no?

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry The human embryo is a human being - from the moment of conception, thus made in the image of God and of immense value and inviolable.

If cells, or collection of cells, can be harvested from the unborn - which requires the destruction of that individual – then in principle they can be harvested from, and through the destruction of, any human being. I understand the latter occurs in China.

Adult stem cell research/harvesting poses no violation of ethics in the same way.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso The Bible does not say "The human embryo is a human being" Apparanty The Bible does not know what a human embryo is. This is what I'm saying...Yes the Bible may say we are human from the moment of conception, but it does not seem to provide us with any practical information about what happens during conception, or how to identify when a woman has become pregnant. The Bible domineeringly places absolute value on conception but demonstrates virtually no expertise about human conception.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry Ehh???It's not rocket science that humans have humans, and that the first part of any humans life and development is in the womb. There's no special knowledge needed to understand this, or that there's continuity in the life of a human beginning at conception. Though much of the technical knowledge we have today regarding life in the womb (which also emphatically establishes the humanity of the unborn) was unknown until recent times, does not mean the basics were unknown.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso Yes, embryo leads to a fetus that leads to a born baby. But assuming we have no real evidence for existence of souls or spirits we can clearly see there is a dramatic physiological difference between an embryo and the latter two. The Bible tells us they hold the same human value but no modern technical knowledge is evidenced... It's like a McDonalds fry-cook telling us about the value of the alpha magnetic spectrometer..And known human suffrage is on the line.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry 'But assuming we have no real evidence for existence of souls or spirits...' Some assumption! If you assume human beings have no value, you can do anything you like to them...

Physiological difference is irrelevent to the issue of value. Of course there is an 'observable' difference between you as a fertilised egg and as baby about to be born, and as you are now, because you've gone through the programmed development set in train by conception. But at conception you were you.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso If we for one second separate ourselves from our religious bias, and objectively look at the situation, we've got what appears to be a collection of 150 cells that in no way resembles that which strong observable evidence suggests is prerequisite for a thinking and feeling human being. (neurons nerves, complex anatomy etc.) But because of the arbitrary claims of an old book, we dogmatically give priority of life to these cells over the well being of thinking/feeling humans. Moral 9/11?

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry 'If we for one second separate ourselves from our religious bias...' You're proposing that one 'religious bias', as you term it, is put aside so that another 'religious bias' can takes its place.

So we put aside the idea that we are created and have been given by our Creator immence value and declared inviolable by him, and take up the idea instead that we haven't been created, that we have no value and no purpose, and are a just a collection of chemicals, material stuff...

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso Let me word it differently, if we put aside what we -believe- and look at only what we -know- beyond a reasonable doubt based on observable physical evidence, then the situation seems to look very different. Yes, the assumption that we weren't created; that we have no value... Would in itself be a significant bias. But, We can -withhold judgement- on those deeply mysterious questions, we don't have to pretend to know; Our actions based on a testable understanding of the world around us.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry Worded differently but just as many problems. We can't put aside what we 'believe' because what we 'know' is based on our basic presuppositions.

Then you've imposed a limit on what evidence is allowed - phyiscal only. Is 'thought' - not physical - not allowed? Of course it's allowed because you prosuppose it when you refer to 'reasonable doubt'.

It is precisely because of a testable understanding of the world that we should accept there is a Creator, and his revelation...

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso To my understanding, knowledge and presupposition are quite mutually exclusive terms. Can you give a simple example of our knowledge of something relying on presupposition? Now it's true we have a lot to learn about the "mind" and how the various components of the brain actualize the mind, all evidence suggests is that the mind is a physical product of the various components of the brain working together.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry '...all evidence suggests is that the mind is a physical product of the various components of the brain working together.' That is a materialist presupposition....

...which means that this conversation is just an 'epi-phenomonon' of matter and thus determined by matter, and so any discussion about the truth or otherwise of things we're talking about is irrelevant. There is no truth, nor morality, nor thought of any sort - only matter and what is determined by matter...

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso A presupposition is an absolute assertion based on an implicit assumption about the world or background belief. In contrast the neuro-scientific analysis doesn't make an absolute conclusive assertion, hence: "evidence suggests" which is very different from "evidence proves" or "God commands" When we manipulate the brain, we manipulate the mind, a clear example of evidence that "the mind" or "thought" is physical. So we are not certain to presuppose fact but there is no contrary evidence.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry 'When we manipulate the brain, we manipulate the mind, a clear example of evidence that "the mind" or "thought" is physical.'

Not so.

Your comments here are encoded thought. Your thoughts are carried to me on a variety of physical mediums, but aren't physical. Fiddling the dial of a radio affects the phyical meduim carrying the

broadcast, but the content of the broadcast is not physical.

Fiddling with the brain may affect the mind, but this not mean the mind is physical.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso No evidence exists to suggest a non-physical soul/spirit. We must be aware when studying the mind we hold a clear anthropocentric bias. We can not make assumptions where there is no evidence. Is there an observing body distinct/separate from brain activity; conscious thought; sensory experience? What properties does this observing body have if it is separate from thought and sensory experience? Is to "Be" anything more than the construction of thought/sensory exp? Evidence suggests no.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso To me the human mind is a greater gift from god than the Bible, for without it the Bible would have no purpose. Yet we are dogmatically nitpicking on rather vague notions from this ancient text, and somehow this is allowed trump anything our minds have to say or think about it. "And you shall love the lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your might" What is -love- without understanding? and what greater might do we possess as humans than our capacity to learn?

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry If it's solely a material universe as you seem to believe, where does 'god' fit in?

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso To the first point you made, I should have worded that differently. I meant to say: we know in every part of the physical universe for every action there is a physical reaction, when there is a reaction in the mind due to an action of brain manipulation we can derrive this as -evidence- (not proof) that it is physical simply because it is a reaction. #2 The universe may not be solely material, we don't know. God may exist, we don't know, material or not, we don't know.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry Just because a drug or injury affects a mind, does not mean the mind is physical. Yes, there is cause and effect, and a physical cause may cause a physical effect. But so may non-material causes. Information is non-material and produces all sorts of physical effects.

RE 2. We do know the universe is not solely material. Information is non-material and there is info in the universe. Re God's existence. Info requires intelligence as a cause and thus genetic info does also.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso I'd like to stress again that I'm not saying the mind is only physical.. I'm saying we have some evidence to suggest that the mind is only physical and we have no evidence to suggest that the mind is non-physical. We also have no evidence to suggest that information is non-material. Information might just be a complex physical state and I'd love to hear some evidence that suggests otherwise.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry If the mind is physical, then it is determined by the laws of chemistry and physics. Clearly it is not determined by these and so is not physical but transcends chemistry. No one disputes that under normal circulstances it 'rides on' - for want of a better term, or is connected to material stuff.

If, as you're suggesting, information is possibly material, please explain where it is in a book. A book is made of wood fibres and ink etc. How could they determine the books content?

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso So I am not making an assertion about the universe being solely material, and I am not making any presuppositions about the existience or value of God. It's entirely possible if God is multi-dimensionally infinite that God -is- the material universe and beyond (if beyond exists) What I am stating is what we -know- there is evidence for. Evidence exists that a newly fertilized embryo does not have the physiological components to actuate it's own experience of sufferage if terminated.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry We know coded information derives from intelligence, thus living things (stuffed full of coded info) derive from a Creator.

The full genetic instructions etc, for a human being is encoded in the fertilised egg. It has all the informational components required to produce a human being. Obviously as the baby develops, as a result of the outworking of that information, its size and appearance changes. Its value is not determined by what it experiences but by what it is - Imago Dei.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso "We know coded information derives from intelligence, thus living things (stuffed full of coded info) derive from a Creator." Is a presupposition, an assertion. It's one thing to say you have faith in God's existence, but to say we have knowledge of God's existence and nature is something I find quite disconcerting. Who's to say that intelligence is the be all and end all of the divine, what if there's something better than and completely different than what we call intelligence?

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry What is a presupposition? That coded information always derives from intelligence? It is estabished by all human experience. Thus wherever we find coded information, we should ask, "Who produced this?'

If you're not fussed by God, then I guess evidence for his existence is disconcertiing.

No one said '...intelligence is the be all and end all of the divine.' What genetic info indicates is that at a minimum God is intelligent - highly intelligent - mind numbingly clever...

[Itseasyifyoutry]

So we've arbitrarily proclaimed the existence of an awesome powerful infinite omnipotent being, and then we've applied a curiously human quality to it...Basically we're saying "Human intelligence is awesome, God obviously has awesome intelligence--and--this is one of the main reasons he is so great" I find this to be a notion full of human conceits. In fact a case could be made that -all- the other animals are more intelligent than us if we succeed in self destruction via nuclear weapons.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry We find ourselves to have intelligence. One thing personal intelligent beings can do is make things not determined by instinct etc. The more intelligence is applied in somethings production, the more complex and amazing it can be. In living things we find the ultimate in complexity and brilliant design and this points to a personal being of intelligence beyond our ability to fully comprehend.

Re animals having greater intelligence than humans: It wouldn't be a very good case.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso So my argument is not with people who search for God. My argument is against those who feel that our understanding of God is completed, because these are the people who sometimes feel that it is ok to hurt other people, to kill them because of what they understand Gods will to be. It clearly demonstrates how powerfully dogmatic belief can undermine and manipulate our perception of the universe; of what is right and what is wrong, of what we know and what we don't.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry No human being ever has complete/exhaustive knowledge of God. They can never the less have true knowledge of God.

Who are you're referring to re hurting and killing - presumably Muslims.

Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc etc etc, had powerful dogmatic beliefs and slaughtered millions. They were humanists.

If mind is material, and there aen't no God, then there aen't no right and wrong in the universe. Just material stuff doing it thing. Why worry if some hurt/kill others?

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso To my knowledge hitler was Catholic actually, but I think this is a moot point. I think we can agree he certainly had unfounded dogmatic beliefs about the value of human beings characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles. #2 Again, God may exist, we don't know #3 we really don't know much about nature of matter, we've only begun to scratch the surface. I reason that any true understanding of reality helps us understand God, if he exists.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry 'When we manipulate the brain, we manipulate the mind...' Ummm...who is this 'we' that is manipulating the brain? Is it the brain manipulating the brain? Surely you've identified an entity separate and distinct from the brain, which observes the brain and directs manipulation of it...

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso In a proper controlled experiment the observing body is rarely also the subject. For instance if we give a person LSD, it alters -their- brain chemistry, which alters -their- state of mind and thoughts and -we- can observe this to be true across a proportionally representative sample group of humans. Because their is a physical action we can derrive the reaction to also being physical. A non-physical entity should not be affected by the physical universe.

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry 'A non-physical entity should not be affected by the physical universe.'

Why not?

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry ...Thus it is unsurprising to find humans universally function in terms of moral catagories. God's law to some degree 'is written on the heart'. Mans moral nature is meant to conform to God's explicit law, but man has rebelled against God and his moral order, and set himself up as God, the determiner of right and wrong.

But...through cutting loose from his Maker, man has lost the moral North that gives meaning to his ethics, and now his compass needle can point any which way.

[Itseasyifyoutry]

@rynso So we have some degree of moral judgement that can investigate--- that which is beyond what written scripture has explicitly or implicitly conveyed--- because God's law is partially integrated into said moral judgement via our spirits; souls; hearts. My question is when there is conflict between scripture and our own moral judgement...Does this -always- mean that we have either misinterpreted scripture and/or accessed the godless fraction of our own judgement? Can scripture ever be wrong?

[rynso]

@Itseasyifyoutry ...re 911: By what standard are the actions of that day (whatever they were) to be judged? If you consider them bad - and even had a couple of hundred million others agree with you, why should I listen to you if I think them good?

Yes, Muslims justify daily jihad on the basis of a law higher than themselves which they consider derives from Allah - their god, and logicaly follow the actions of their prophet.

But actually everyone functions on the basis of a higher law...

[medistat9]

Humour? Perhaps someone should create a similar clip about your cranky and uninformed opinions! You'd be one of these people that makes a heap of noise and steam but still drives around in a fossil fuel car and heats your house with electricity. Perhaps we should all listen to your diatribe and move back into caves.

[rynso]

@medistat9 I can't work out where your coming from. Actually, it sounds like I'm on your side. Perhaps you had better watch the clip again...and listen more carefully. Maybe you'll even laugh... :-)

[medistat9]

This is dishonest. You might call it sattire but claiming to be interviewing NS when you are in fact interviewing yourself is a lie. 

[rynso]

@medistat9 You need to get a sense of humour...

[Cl1mateAware]

Check out William Tarkovsky's eco-video "The Book of New Creation"...

The name of the game: humanism, sustainability and service.

[rynso]

@Cl1mateAware

More boring boot strap meaning and morality - which is totally unsustainable, and without foundation...

[grannman]

loved it. Didn't know what to expect initially but found it very well done. Thumbs up.

[rynso]

@grannman

Thanks. Tell others about it...

[cheetah100]

I like it. I still don't agree with denying the increase in temperature, or that human activity is the cause, but I do agree that a ETS will only serve to punish our primary enterprises. I loved the point about grass, even though obviously the CO2 output from animals is offset by CO2 scrubbing from grass.

[unreally7]

true, true, true! Well done!