I’ll answer the question I asked you, for you (because it’s really that easy)r, “why wouldn’t you want someone to smash your finger with a hammer?”.
There are a few reasons:
Because it would hurt really bad
Because it could do permanent damage and make your finger unusable
Because you value freedom from the aggression of others
And so on…
Morality arises from experience, some of which people tend to want to avoid. In this case, freedom from unwanted aggression. You find that others around you want the same thing and you all agree that unwanted aggression (like hitting someone with a hammer) is something you’d all agree is wrong.
Unwanted aggression is immoral.
Why, because it causes unjustified harm.
Question…Does valuing freedom from unwanted aggression and agreeing that anyone that is aggressive toward others (like hitting other people with hammers) should be (at the very least) punished via incarceration achieve the goals of maintaining the value in question?
If yes, the moral and the actions the group takes is consistent with the values held by the group and is ultimately consistent with the basest of desires, freedom from pain, suffering, misery and sickness.
That’s what I said…
And I have yet to see any evidence that a supernatural being caused it either. Now we’re left to try to reason out something that cannot, at this time be proven, only debated.
However, I don’t deny that you might be right, only that I’m not going to act on the wishes of any god before I know that the god in question exists. I mean, how many claims are there out there that specific gods exist?
There are at least a dozen major religions in the world and thousands of variants. Even if I capitulate and decide that a god made all this possible, what are the chances that I’ll pick the right one? What if picking the wrong one is worse than not picking one at all?
My beliefs only require that you follow the evidence. Is everything I believe backed by certifiable testable evidence? Nope, but as the evidence for my beliefs decline, actions taken on behalf of that belief are reduced.
For example, I believe that the universe is large enough that there is probably life in many other places, probably even intelligent life. I can’t prove that and as a result, my actions (which are informed by what I believe) in this case would be minimal based on the consequences.
In other words, the less evidence for a position, the less one should expect others to do on account of that belief.
Your explanation is classic “god-of-the-gaps” thinking.
Now go back 500 years and look at all the gaps that have vanished thanks to the increasing knowledge that we’ve obtained.
Just not sure how that’s any different than what I said. Christians believe that god has already shown/ told/ shared with them how (fill in the blank) and all that’s left is to look for the evidence to prove it so they can convince others. Now if you’re saying the don’t bother with the evidence and skip straight to trying to convince others, well, I won’t disagree that there are many Christians like that.
Actually, there is some, albeit coincidental) evidence that you’re right. Quantum physics uncovers some very, very strange notions about how things work deep inside our universe.
For example (and I’m going to oversimplify this to make it easier to type out), scientists have split particles and noted that if you change the “spin” of one of the two halves, the other half will instantaneously spin in the opposite direction in reaction to changing the first half. So the test was repeated and the halves were spread farther apart and what has been observed is that the two parts react instantaneously. There is no measurable time in which it takes the other half to change. If you put the two halves opposite ends of our galaxy and changed one half the result would be the same. An instantaneous transfer of information across any distance, faster than the speed of light.
Now, one idea is that in “reality” the two haves aren’t really ever separate at all. They exist in the same place and distance and time are just an illusion.
There is another experiment that shows that light is both a wave and a particle and that it exists, simultaneously in both states until someone views it directly or indirectly via a measuring device.
Now what’s really weird is that this is very, very, very similar to how a computer works and how it creates simulations of the world.
I doubt you’ve ever played a video game (though you might have, I dunno), but if you’ve ever seen or played a game in which you are playing in first person, the computer only draws what you’re looking at in order to save processing power. That which is behind you does not exist until you turn around and look at it.
You can play in worlds that are thousands of miles square, in some cases you can program entire universes, but in reality the space of that simulated world exists on my hard drive, memory and CPU.
Now, before you say anything, I don’t beleive this is the case and I’ve done a poor job expaining all of the erie similarities between virtual worlds and some of the quantum weirdness that we observe in nature, but your statment isn’t as far fetched as you might think.