25 Jul 11
Originally posted by JS357I'm just going with systems that increase in complexity. Fully expecting Freaky to come back and say the Miller-Urey experiments were created by humans, so any results of the experiment are bound to be simpler than the "creators" of the experiment.
Quote: "...in fact, I cannot think of a single created thing that was more complex than its creator. Can you? "
In the divine-creator sense of the word 'created,' I can't think of a single created thing.
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by JS357Personal taste is all a 2 or 3 year old has on its own, they want what they want
I don't know if you are a parent. I will enlighten you on how you are wrong. Moral codes are passed on within a society before a person has much in the way of personal taste or the ability to express/act on it. Personal taste is not available to the 2 or 3 year old. Nor was it available to the child's parent's when they were 2 or 3. In the early years there is ...[text shortened]... ally should look into 'stages of moral development' by say, googling on that term.
when they want it. Your telling them what they should and shouldn't do is still
mankind making it up as it goes. I know families where the males got all the
goodies and the females were being trained to be good little servants.
Growing up if all those kids or any kids have are obey the rules you want to or
agree with, than nothing will stand on its own that isn't subject to change. If
there are no rules except those that man has, and man is the only rule maker,
than you have nothing but...personal taste.
Society pretty much everywhere are in states of flux as far as what is or is not
accepted. If there isn't something beyond man, than personal taste is the rule
of the day.
Kelly
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by KellyJay"Personal taste" is a dismissive term, isn't it?
Personal taste is all a 2 or 3 year old has on its own, they want what they want
when they want it. Your telling them what they should and shouldn't do is still
mankind making it up as it goes. I know families where the males got all the
goodies and the females were being trained to be good little servants.
Growing up if all those kids or any kids hav ...[text shortened]... ted. If there isn't something beyond man, than personal taste is the rule
of the day.
Kelly
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastIt looks like you don't need me to remind you, then. That which emanates from the system (for instance, a child) derives its complexity from that which was put into it from the system. The latter cannot become more complex than the material provided it allows.
I'm just going with systems that increase in complexity. Fully expecting Freaky to come back and say the Miller-Urey experiments were created by humans, so any results of the experiment are bound to be simpler than the "creators" of the experiment.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow can we tell that something is more complex than its creator, without knowing how complex both of them are? And how can we tell how complex a creator is, without examining the creator? If the creator is divine (a god) I don't know of any that have been examined. How's that for an explanation?
You'll need to explain yourself on that one.
27 Jul 11
Originally posted by JS357I actually agree completely! People will use whatever they can find that justifies
Yes, people will do that. Some of them will say their religion justifies it or even demand it.
their desires, religion, their views of basic fairness, passed crimes from people
who lived a hundred years ago, whatever it takes. I was pointing out Atheist
only have themselves, but even theist will bend whatever they can to their
desires to suit themselves. Only a standard that comes from a greater source
than mankind can be true beyond the warped desires of man.
Kelly
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
27 Jul 11
Originally posted by KellyJay
I actually agree completely! People will use whatever they can find that justifies
their desires, religion, their views of basic fairness, passed crimes from people
who lived a hundred years ago, whatever it takes. I was pointing out Atheist
only have themselves, but even theist will bend whatever they can to their
desires to suit themselves. Only a sta ...[text shortened]... t comes from a greater source
than mankind can be true beyond the warped desires of man.
Kelly
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
27 Jul 11
Originally posted by KellyJay"I was pointing out Atheist only have themselves..."
I actually agree completely! People will use whatever they can find that justifies
their desires, religion, their views of basic fairness, passed crimes from people
who lived a hundred years ago, whatever it takes. I was pointing out Atheist
only have themselves, but even theist will bend whatever they can to their
desires to suit themselves. Only a sta ...[text shortened]... t comes from a greater source
than mankind can be true beyond the warped desires of man.
Kelly
What haven't you ruled out, as a moral guide? It's a sincere question.
27 Jul 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSophistry. As if there were little "complexion particles" that emanate from "complexity sources" to "complexity sinks"! That's rich.
It looks like you don't need me to remind you, then. That which emanates from the system (for instance, a child) derives its complexity from that which was put into it from the system. The latter cannot become more complex than the material provided it allows.
As I believe I have already said, there are all manner of examples in nature where we can see input from a simple energy source resulting in increasing complexity in the arrangement of the matter in a localized region. Sunlight pouring onto the Earth's surface results in the arrangement of atoms into trillions of metric tons of complex biomass, for instance. Throughout the cosmos there is the evidence of simple gas and dust forming more complex organic compounds and eventually planets.
But "complexity" is a poor term. What's your definition of "complexity," beyond it being just a buzzword? A better term is "entropy," or even "order," which you could start reading up on at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
Total entropy is increasing in the universe, but it can decrease in localized (open) thermodynamic systems. I've often encountered arguments in favor of a god that make use of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but they are all shopworn and fallacious. Yes, the universe evidently began its existence with low initial entropy, but this fact by itself is not an argument for the existence of a god. It just "is," as with all the other initial conditions of the cosmos. But theists nevertheless press on with a hand-waving argument that low initial cosmic entropy (whether thermodynamic or of some other kind -- see that article again) means that there was an input of "information from outside" at the time of the Big Bang. Ergo God, QED. It's all balderdash of course.
27 Jul 11
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm having trouble with the construction of this statement. What does "true beyond the...desires of man" even mean?
Only a standard that comes from a greater source
than mankind can be true beyond the warped desires of man.
Kelly
Anyway, good luck with that search for the Absolute Frame of Reference of Morality. Determinism went out with aethereal aether sometime shortly after the turn of the last century.
27 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastAs I believe I have already said, there are all manner of examples in nature where we can see input from a simple energy source resulting in increasing complexity in the arrangement of the matter in a localized region.
Sophistry. As if there were little "complexion particles" that emanate from "complexity sources" to "complexity sinks"! That's rich.
As I believe I have already said, there are all manner of examples in nature where we can see input from a simple energy source resulting in increasing complexity in the arrangement of the matter in a localized region. ...[text shortened]... the time of the Big Bang. Ergo God, QED. It's all balderdash of course.
That's poor. Quit moving the posts and stick to the topic. "Input from a simple energy source" isn't remotely near what we are discussing, and you know it. And the crap about "sunlight pouring onto the Earth's surface" is just that: crap. If the pouring of the sun were the cause, the Earth's surface wouldn't be needed now would it? We'd see "all manner of examples" of increasing complexity anywhere that ol' sun dripped its goodness.
But that's really not the point, is it? The OP asked how the person who suggests that all of *this* is a result of physics and chemistry explains moral values. Let's get back to that.
27 Jul 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAh, so now you're back to talking about morality, after trading several posts with me about issues that are not the least bit relevant to morality. So you don't want to talk about "complexity" anymore, and defend your thesis that "no thing created can ever be more complex than its creator"...? You're the one who brought it up, my good fellow.
That's poor. Quit moving the posts and stick to the topic. "Input from a simple energy source" isn't remotely near what we are discussing, and you know it. And the crap about "sunlight pouring onto the Earth's surface" is just that: crap. If the pouring of the sun were the cause, the Earth's surface wouldn't be needed now would it? We'd see "all manne ...[text shortened]... a result of physics and chemistry explains moral values. Let's get back to that.
I'm sure it's a troubling concept, but sometimes a thread evolves far beyond the original topic. It just happens. If it didn't, this thread probably would have become extinct eons ago.