Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:55 pm
Yes take the axiom "the laws of physics have never changed" this cannot be tested, we either assume it or not, if we assume it's true we can develop a theoretical cosmology but if we assume it's false then we can develop a different theoretical cosmology.
It is possible to generate two theories with different axioms that each match observation too, so as I said we cannot test the axiom itself only our reasoning from it. There are other examples too, for example the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe.
A real example if that will help is the axiom about gravitation and dark matter, one schools says dark matter really does exist the other says it does not and what we see is actually the result of gravity behaving differently to what we assume, that GR is in fact wrong and that modifying it can explain the apparent dark matter.
Does this help?
Q: What does the fact that the "the laws of physics may change in the future" have to do with the fact that there exists an objective morality that results from an objective mechanism and its not based on whim or subjective ponderings, feelings?
Really don’t get it.
objective
/əbˈdʒɛktɪv/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
Philosophy
Grammar
Optics
adjective
1. 1.
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Q: So you do not believe affective empathy exists and that it works as I mention?(yes/no)
Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:55 pm
Yet we do see murder, abuse, torture, rape, power imposed upon the weak, exploitation etc, this fact seems to undermine your claims.
If only that were true, our prisons would be empty and that poor girl who was recently stabbed by a maniac in LA would be alive.
Existence of murder, abuse, torture, rape, power imposed upon the weak, exploitation does not disprove the existence of this objective mechanism.
One can ignore this intrinsic morality, the trigger of affective empathy and still act abhorrently. People with this intrinsic morality that commit such acts also feel remorse after because this objective mechanism tells them it’s wrong.
Many of these acts are done by psychopaths, sociopaths. Most people do not murder, torture, rape because they have their affective empathy developed.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:55 pm
Murderers don't find murder abhorrent.
Because their affective empathy is not developed/ is severely impaired(psychopaths, sociopaths) therefore they do not have this objective morality(this objective mechanism does not happen).
Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:55 pm
If we possess empathy we should thank God for that.
It developed thanks to evolution.
Morality evolved as the social behavior of the "pack", "group", "community", "tribe" of animals and humans evolved into what we have today. Scientists say that the following characteristics are
shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes: attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and
reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group. They also argue that these pre-moral sentiments evolved in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups.
For any social species, the benefits of being part of an altruistic group should outweigh the benefits of individualism. For example, lack of group cohesion could make individuals more vulnerable
to attack from outsiders. Being part of group may also improve the chances of finding food. This is evident among animals that hunt in packs to take down large or dangerous prey.
Morality evolved because of natural selection.
Groups, pack, tribes that were more altruistic, that showed more cohesion, sympathy and empathy and cooperation were more likely to survive and find food. Groups were psychopathy was prevalent and showed mostly individual selfishness were less likely to survive.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:55 pm
1. No I do not regard God as indifferent, I accept that I do not understand his goal and unless we do we cannot critique the methods he uses.
2. I do not believe that life evolved from simpler, primitive life.
1. If you believe in a omnibenevolent, personal being(that cares about humans well being) how do you reconcile natural evils that inflict great suffering and pain indiscriminately to non-moral agents(infants, non-human animals, severely mentally impaired)with such being?
2. So you don’t believe in evolution with all the evidence from paleontology, biogeography, genetics, biology& morphology.
Q: How come?