Moral objective values...

[whisperit]

[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font][/url]

[JohnA]

[Replying to JohnA]

You were asked "So exactly what imperatives are controlling influences upon the way you live your life?"

Your number 1 answer was . "Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)"
That was your whole number one answer. There was no conditional that said "ONLY if".

But it not just the "ONLY if", it's the fact that this golden rule is not supported via evolution at all. This golden rule fails based on simple logic.
That is why you refuse to answer if you will love my enemies or love your enemies.
Im surprised that you did not try to say that I implied some deity authored and controlled evolution. I do not. I am defined by what my beliefs are, not my lack of beliefs.

And no, I do not buy your answer that you have no opinion on this golden rule. That is a non sequitur on your part.

[JohnA]

[Replying to JohnA]

You were asked "So exactly what imperatives are controlling influences upon the way you live your life?"

Your number 1 answer was . "Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)"
That was your whole number one answer. There was no conditional that said "ONLY if".

And what is your answer? I do not buy it that you have no answer merely by the fact that you are challenging me.
Would you love my enemies?

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 755 by JohnA]

I am wondering why you keep arguing against the golden rule despite the fact that in a post about the imperatives you operate under you associated evolution with empathy and ethics. What I think about the golden rule has nothing to do with that.

But you have to show that this golden rule has something to do with evolution, it is evolution. Science does not say this at all.

You are welcome to take your burden of proof and present where science (not scientists) say this golden rule is evolution. Good luck. Please do remember to define your claim and hypothesis. And yes, try to convince me this rule is real, not just based on subjective opinion grounded in assumptions - will you love my enemies, e.g.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 755 by JohnA]

I am wondering why you keep arguing against the golden rule despite the fact that in a post about the imperatives you operate under you associated evolution with empathy and ethics. What I think about the golden rule has nothing to do with that.

But you have to show that this golden rule has something to do with evolution, it is evolution. Science does not say this at all.

You are welcome to take your burden of proof and present where science (not scientists) say this golden rule is evolution. Good luck. Please do remember to define your claim and hypothesis. And yes, try to convince me this rule is real, not just based on subjective opinion grounded in assumptions - will you love my enemies, e.g.

[emphasis applied]
John A. you are hopelessly confused. No one has to prove and no one has made a claim that the 'golden rule is evolution.' Evolutionary theory simply explains that groups that worked together via reciprocal cooperation were more likely to survive than conglomerations of people who did not cooperate. It's very simple. Apparently not simple enough for some, but simply nonetheless.

2d, you seem to think Help3434 must proceed with his argument according to some rule YOU have arbitrarily decreed. Perhaps you can show us where YOU have the authority to determine the rules and method of debate on this site.

Then you make this absurd claim that Help 3434 must somehow show where "science (not scientists) say" [whatever]. Where did you come up with the silly notion that "science" somehow articulates itself and is not presented [at least in a debate forum] through the words of scientists?

Again John A, you do not make the rules, and even if you did, no one is going to accept your preposterous rule proposals.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 755 by JohnA]

I am wondering why you keep arguing against the golden rule despite the fact that in a post about the imperatives you operate under you associated evolution with empathy and ethics. What I think about the golden rule has nothing to do with that.

But you have to show that this golden rule has something to do with evolution, it is evolution. Science does not say this at all.

You are welcome to take your burden of proof and present where science (not scientists) say this golden rule is evolution. Good luck. Please do remember to define your claim and hypothesis. And yes, try to convince me this rule is real, not just based on subjective opinion grounded in assumptions - will you love my enemies, e.g.

[emphasis applied]
John A. you are hopelessly confused. No one has to prove and no one has made a claim that the 'golden rule is evolution.' Evolutionary theory simply explains that groups that worked together via reciprocal cooperation were more likely to survive than conglomerations of people who did not cooperate. It's very simple. Apparently not simple enough for some, but simply nonetheless.

2d, you seem to think Help3434 must proceed with his argument according to some rule YOU have arbitrarily decreed. Perhaps you can show us where YOU have the authority to determine the rules and method of debate on this site.

Then you make this absurd claim that Help 3434 must somehow show where "science (not scientists) say" [whatever]. Where did you come up with the silly notion that "science" somehow articulates itself and is not presented [at least in a debate forum] through the words of scientists?

Again John A, you do not make the rules, and even if you did, no one is going to accept your preposterous rule proposals.

John A. you are hopelessly confused.

It is JohnA, remember?
I will now proceed once again, and show it is indeed you that are confused, hopelessly.

No one has to prove and no one has made a claim that the 'golden rule is evolution.'

Does that exclude some people here that accused me of saying that? Or does their straw manning not count in your assertion?

Evolutionary theory simply explains that groups that worked together via reciprocal cooperation were more likely to survive than conglomerations of people who did not cooperate. It's very simple. Apparently not simple enough for some, but simply nonetheless.

That is incorrect again.
Wikipedia defines Evolution as:
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

Are you still holding that this Golden Rule is indeed Evolution? Or are your excluded from making or even defining your claims?

Are you saying this is the Golden Rule? --->>>

groups that worked together via reciprocal cooperation were more likely to survive than conglomerations of people who did not cooperate

I have to say, I struggle understanding what you are trying to claim here. But according to you, it seems like I am not even allowed to ask for clarification.

2d, you seem to think Help3434 must proceed with his argument according to some rule YOU have arbitrarily decreed. Perhaps you can show us where YOU have the authority to determine the rules and method of debate on this site.

What RULE have I decreed?
Do you know what is the burden of proof? You have demonstrated previously, almost conclusively that YOU are allowed to make claims and REFUSE to back it up.
If someone makes a claim then I will only accept that claim as fact if it is according to standard criteria. And the criteria that I proposed is in line with, actually it is exactly how science derives at knowledge. I do not accept when people declare claims as truth using faith or belief.

Reading the rules of this forum it seems to be on my side: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6

Then you make this absurd claim that Help 3434 must somehow show where "science (not scientists) say" [whatever]. Where did you come up with the silly notion that "science" somehow articulates itself and is not presented [at least in a debate forum] through the words of scientists?

This is your lack of understanding science that is shinning though now, hopelessly.

Offering scientist A and B says X is an argument from authority. It is a logical fallacy Danmark.
What I am after is scientific fact, scientific theory or scientific laws when it concerns sceintific claims. These normally refer to where the knowledge offered, confirmed by experiments using different methods to test the same idea, and the idea's originator (& his/her authority) become irrelevant to the outcome.
When scientific research is conducted properly, its source becomes irrelevant to an evaluation of its meaning.
The point is that science is designed to dismiss the significance of any individual or authority and to focus on evidence.

The speed of light in constant in a vacuum, Danmark. I do not even know who came up with that, nor do I care.

This is science 101 Danmark.
Besides, why do you think such a thing as argument from authority is considered a logical fallacy? Are you now saying you reject this too? What else do you reject Danmark besides this and your own assertion fallacies?

Again John A, you do not make the rules, and even if you did, no one is going to accept your preposterous rule proposals

It is JohnA, remember?

What rules have I proposed, Danmark?
Yes, I know, you can make unsupported claims, and can not or may not be questioned. That is not how "gentleman or woman" debate. So, have you excused yourself? Instantc recons that the burden of proof is wrong in academic debate. He said that in the Netherlands and Germany that people are automatically guilty but they can prove themselves innocent (or was guilty until they do prove themselves innocent?). Are you proposing that this is the case from academic debate as well?

Your post was way off, similar to some of your previous ones.

You are on a troll rant to try and discredited me. But in fact, you are doing quite the opposite. And the irony is that you do not realize it.