time.
My point is that nobody knows what happened before just after the Big Bang. Nobody knows if the universe actually began to exist or it has always existed or even what exactly these things mean in this context.
Right answer.
you can’t be serious…just saying “nobody knows if the universe began to exist” is not a legitimate counter to a bit of reasoning that claims to show that someone does know if the universe began to exist…
I am not sure what you mean by morally wrong. It would go against my intutition that comes from my biology, culture, and upbringing.
That the univese began to exist is a premise of your argument. Not a conclusion. You need to present an argument that shows the universe began to exist as its conclusion using premises that are supported.
I understand the link you provided better after reading over the description many times.
Desire of specie survival. Has this experiment really been preformed to the degree that the monkey would actually DIE from lack of food, in order to prevent his friend from getting hurt? I would like to see some evidence.
I believe that John’s argument (correct me if I’m wrong) centers on the fact that science does indeed use certain models which have implications bringing the model at the level of metaphysics.The point of singularity would be such a theoretical entity.The question leading us to hypothize whether the universe had a beginning at all, is also metaphysical in nature, since we cannot deal with infinities. I personally don’t see any problems with this, as long as we distinguish between observable science and theoretical science.; if we didn’t have eyes to see light, the universe would be very different than the one we presently experience. Reason ought to lead us to believe in a much greater universe than the one we presently can observe.
maybe, but any alleged obligation i may have to support the premises of my argument has got nothing to do with the fact that you are simply stating that one of those premises is false.
I am not saying that it is wrong, but that it could be wrong. Look at the experts in this field. There is a huge debate on these issues. Nobody knows what the rights answers are.
Why should selfish desire evolve out f humans?
It doesn’t matter how it seems.
Why would you expect equal cooperation between all individuals? Everyone has to deal with different enviroments and situations.
I will try to get you a citation later this week. I still have to unpack a bunch of stuff including most of my books and papers.Has this experiment really been preformed to the degree that the monkey would actually DIE from lack of food, in order to prevent his friend from getting hurt? I would like to see some evidence.
sure, but so what? is your point simply that no one “knows” anything, whether it be science or religion?
It’s not?
Not if their premise are secure. Showing the weakness of the premises of one argument does not say anything about the premises of other independent arguments.
no. but showing that it is false, or likely to be false certainly is…
sure. but, as above, it’s no weakness for a premise to be possibly false.
And with this premise we don’t know the probability that it is true or false. We can’t just assume that it is true or probably true.
why do you keep saying that? i am “assuming” nothing: on the contrary, i have presented ***evidence ***that supports the truth of the premise in question, i.e. makes its truth more likely…
Evolution did indeed aide in giving us hightened standards of morality–is that what you are saying? If that’s the case, we should be more advanced in that sense than lions, monkeys, or dolphins, and other animals which depend on the unity and securtiy of the pack or herd or pride or other animals, and do not purposely try to disrupt that unification, unlike humans consistently do.
We are all the same species. You get lions or dogs who are more aggressive than others, but never one lion that kills every other lion in the pack for no reason. Think about abortion. The killing of unborn babies–how is that beneficial in absolutely any way? They are the least threatening form of life you could possibly destroy.
Intuition goes beyond biology? How? The very definition of intuition is: The act or faculty of knowing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. Obviously we are all born with the ability to breathe, like fish and swimming. We do not develop intuition. We can develop the desire to kill, but it is not an innate part of us.
So why does government exist? If what you say is true, we could not punish anyone for their wrongdoings, because they would have done the correct thing for their situation.
My only argument (if I have one), is that there is not enough evidence to justify the belief in personal God. I am asking what evidence justifies this belief.
Why should it be more advanced in human? What does more highly advanced mean in this context?
So? The “moral” behavior of pack animals (which do kill each other) in obviously going to be different than humans.
It benefits the woman if she doesn’t want to have a baby.
So? There are costs to have a baby that can be avoided through abortion.
Chimpanzees commit lots of intraspecies violence including killing.
Suicide can give benefits to the genes the individual carries.
I am using the intuition to include what we get from culture at a very young age.
Because it benefits the individuals. Why does it matter if they are really responible?
i’ve given you evidence - you’ve simply chosen not to address it except to say “not good enough”. ***why ***isn’t it good enough? what’s wrong with the evidence?