"If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe no more than an architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house the only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is what we just find in ourselves Surely this ought to arouse our suspicion? " -CS LEWIS
I'll say it, "good and evil are not relevant as far as eternity is concerned IF there is not at least one eternally consciously existent entity for it to eternally matter to".
But doesn't the belief in purely materialistic Darwinian Evolution lead one to believe (albeit falsely) that there is no Free Will? And if there is no Free Will, then there is no Right and Wrong and no Moral Law (which is completely contrary to everything that is practiced and observed in humanity and the cosmos regarding cause and effect).
Our Creator created both good and evil as a delusion to keep his people believing they are real people until He used us saints to teach us exactly how He created everything. Now that I know we aren't real people living in a real universe, the visible world doesn't cause me any fear.
Matt Hoyte No. It opens the doors to a realm of infinite possibilities beyond our human imagination. In other words, our Creator's computing language will give us an endless amount of experiences and visible objects to observe.
Brad Holkesvig you sure know a lot about thing beyond human imagination. How do you know all this? Did it come to you in a dream? Does this 'creator' speak to you personally?
In my humble point of view, there is not such thing as "Universal Moral Law".Is very interesting that a intelligent guy like Francis could think that the moral "argument" is a plausible argument for God's existence.That "Law" is just empathy, and we as social animals developed that by evolution. When you put yourself in others person shoes you suddenly have thousands of reasons to do what is right!
a lot more that Collins know this to be true-- maybe you should look into this a little deeper and wonder why we know in our souls there is a right and wrong(no matter the law) with no lawgiver- no law-- no watch without a watchmaker
empathy is directed toward others and we could argue that it is beneficial to good relationships between humans. but the human history is filled with the violation of the very Darwinian evolution. humans have gone against their evolution for empathy and have killed and murdered one another for millennia. is this the so called selfish gene at play? what about the moral dilemma of whether to cheat on your taxes or not when you have a perfect opportunity to get away with cheating? what about the same thing with spousal faithfulness? how about stealing and getting away with it? what about envy, bitterness, un-forgiveness, shame, guilt etc? what about the self-destructing pity party, depression, negative self-talk, suicide? how do these work in an evolutionary paradigm of the survival of the fittest? how do those moral deep existential realities help the Darwinian survival?
Morality and ethics are man-made concepts. But to recognize people who are altruistic and moral is essential for our survival, as for social animals. If we wouldn't be able to recognize them, we could be easily betrayed. Without empathy society wouldn't work. And so we are also trying to behave moral and altruistic as well to gain trust of other people. It's simple as that. But things like lying by body language and words are learned abilities. Clear vision of distinction between good and evil is a belief system, as well as religion or political ideology. If we want to grow as a society, belief system shouldn't have rights, but people should, not otherwise. Different people have different belief system and it's okay - until they start to harm others against their will because of it. As an animals with self-preservation instinct, that's something we don't tolerate. It has nothing to do with distinction between good and evil, but with effort of life to continue and evolve.
+Matúš Frisík Following your logic there's nothing like 'should', as you have used it, and whatever is right for anybody is their undeniable right? There is no right or wrong.
+Samuel Arthur There is "right" and "wrong" but not in universal sense. English is not my native language, so it's difficult to explain, but I try. Individual people can have their own ideas about what is good or bad, depending on their inherited knowledge and on their life experience. In general: everything that causes harm is bad, everything that causes pleasure is good. But individual man cannot create culture. Culture is created when group of people live together. When individuals live in groups, their chances of survival are higher. But now, things, that causes pleasure to one, may cause harm to others. So in order to build strength of groups, we have to adapt our understanding of good and evil in order to increase our chances of survival and maintain culture. And that is learned. If you look around, there are different political ideologies, yet diplomacy is still based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. It was always this way. During dark ages in Europe, when Christianity was main religion and Church owned almost everything, education and intelligence was considered "devil's tools" and evil, because uneducated people are easier to manipulate. People trying to educate others and weaken position of Church, were usually executed by Church. Yet knowledge was still collected until in 18th century philosophy of Enlightenment started to dominate the world of ideas in Europe which meant end of abuses of the church and state. Culture in Europe evolved and spread to western world. Current world is based on secular principles. Then there was industrial revolution, and recently information revolution, where national boundaries lose their meaning. But we, as human species, didn't evolved much in past 100 thousand years. If you took a children born 100 thousand years ago and put it in today's society, you wouldn't recognize any difference in it's behavior or look. The way we are evolving right now, we will eventually evolve into eusociality inside a giant anthill. Until we find a way to intelligence augmentations and full body replacement. Human beings will generally be happier when they take rational control of the natural and social forces that control their lives. True freedom for real people (as opposed to abstract Lockeian free men) requires access to health care, universal education, and the amelioration of social inequality. Social democracy pursues economic equality, the democratic control of economic forces, and solidaristic social policies, as well as personal and civil liberties and minority rights. And our scientific and technological knowledge is in exponential progress. Our lives are naturally merging with our technology and it's already happening. So I think our future is the new transhuman race and finally transcending limitations of elementary building blocks of this universe, from which physical laws, spacetime, energy and everything we can observe emerges. In general, I think it's the final destination of any form of intelligence in this universe with an effort of self-preservation.
Well said, I was just about to reply to this lame argument for gods existence which is trotted out time and again. Human beings are co-operative mammals and that's what society is built upon. Altruism is just an extreme form of co-operation for the benefit of the many as opposed to the individual. We can see this at a basic level with parent child relationships, where parents make sacrifices for their children, this expands to foster parents and adopted children and on and on to wider schemas where certain individuals make great sacrifices for the greater good of humanity. A computer would do the same if it's directive was to ensure the continuation of its kind.
he's a scientist who's new to philosophy I guess. He's so shocked that there are things that exist outside what physics describes, he jumps to the conclusion that it's evidence for god. Yes, goodness exists, numbers exist. None of that has anything to do with god.
We get our morality from our parents (or who ever raises us) the same way and at the same time as we get our language. We are too young to remember which open the door to claims that morality is "written on our hearts" and such nonsense.
We may believe in it because our parents taught us it, but that does not make it untrue. I learned arithmetic in elementary school from teachers but that does not mean that my belief that 2+2=4 is a matter of taste. Our parents could have taught us that cruelty was good but that would have been incorrect.
This is a terrible video. You spend the whole time talking about the existence of moral realism, but you title the video "god from morality"... how the heck does the existence of universal moral truths imply the existence of god? You did not spend one second explaining this.
Words of wisdom. Logical, reasonable and conclusive for evidence of a Holy supreme being.
Hogwash all the way!
"If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe no more than an architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house the only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is what we just find in ourselves Surely this ought to arouse our suspicion? "
-CS LEWIS
I'll say it, "good and evil are not relevant as far as eternity is concerned IF there is not at least one eternally consciously existent entity for it to eternally matter to".
Collins is really great
But doesn't the belief in purely materialistic Darwinian Evolution lead one to believe (albeit falsely) that there is no Free Will? And if there is no Free Will, then there is no Right and Wrong and no Moral Law (which is completely contrary to everything that is practiced and observed in humanity and the cosmos regarding cause and effect).
A solely materialistic worldview would certainly imply natural determinism, not necessarily belief in evolution.
Our Creator created both good and evil as a delusion to keep his people believing they are real people until He used us saints to teach us exactly how He created everything.
Now that I know we aren't real people living in a real universe, the visible world doesn't cause me any fear.
+Brad Holkesvig I'm sorry to hear that.
Matt Hoyte
It's very humbling to know that we're not real people living in a real universe. You don't have to be sorry that you're not real.
Brad Holkesvig I'm sure it is humbling. But I'm still sorry that you think that....it opens the door to all types of delusions.
Matt Hoyte
No. It opens the doors to a realm of infinite possibilities beyond our human imagination. In other words, our Creator's computing language will give us an endless amount of experiences and visible objects to observe.
Brad Holkesvig you sure know a lot about thing beyond human imagination. How do you know all this? Did it come to you in a dream? Does this 'creator' speak to you personally?
❤️❤️
👌🏾💎✌
In my humble point of view, there is not such thing as "Universal Moral Law".Is very interesting that a intelligent guy like Francis could think that the moral "argument" is a plausible argument for God's existence.That "Law" is just empathy, and we as social animals developed that by evolution. When you put yourself in others person shoes you suddenly have thousands of reasons to do what is right!
a lot more that Collins know this to be true-- maybe you should look into this a little deeper and wonder why we know in our souls there is a right and wrong(no matter the law) with no lawgiver- no law-- no watch without a watchmaker
empathy is directed toward others and we could argue that it is beneficial to good relationships between humans. but the human history is filled with the violation of the very Darwinian evolution. humans have gone against their evolution for empathy and have killed and murdered one another for millennia. is this the so called selfish gene at play?
what about the moral dilemma of whether to cheat on your taxes or not when you have a perfect opportunity to get away with cheating? what about the same thing with spousal faithfulness?
how about stealing and getting away with it? what about envy, bitterness, un-forgiveness, shame, guilt etc? what about the self-destructing pity party, depression, negative self-talk, suicide? how do these work in an evolutionary paradigm of the survival of the fittest? how do those moral deep existential realities help the Darwinian survival?
Morality and ethics are man-made concepts. But to recognize people who are altruistic and moral is essential for our survival, as for social animals. If we wouldn't be able to recognize them, we could be easily betrayed. Without empathy society wouldn't work. And so we are also trying to behave moral and altruistic as well to gain trust of other people. It's simple as that. But things like lying by body language and words are learned abilities. Clear vision of distinction between good and evil is a belief system, as well as religion or political ideology. If we want to grow as a society, belief system shouldn't have rights, but people should, not otherwise. Different people have different belief system and it's okay - until they start to harm others against their will because of it. As an animals with self-preservation instinct, that's something we don't tolerate. It has nothing to do with distinction between good and evil, but with effort of life to continue and evolve.
+Matúš Frisík Following your logic there's nothing like 'should', as you have used it, and whatever is right for anybody is their undeniable right? There is no right or wrong.
+Samuel Arthur There is "right" and "wrong" but not in universal sense. English is not my native language, so it's difficult to explain, but I try. Individual people can have their own ideas about what is good or bad, depending on their inherited knowledge and on their life experience. In general: everything that causes harm is bad, everything that causes pleasure is good. But individual man cannot create culture. Culture is created when group of people live together. When individuals live in groups, their chances of survival are higher. But now, things, that causes pleasure to one, may cause harm to others. So in order to build strength of groups, we have to adapt our understanding of good and evil in order to increase our chances of survival and maintain culture. And that is learned. If you look around, there are different political ideologies, yet diplomacy is still based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. It was always this way. During dark ages in Europe, when Christianity was main religion and Church owned almost everything, education and intelligence was considered "devil's tools" and evil, because uneducated people are easier to manipulate. People trying to educate others and weaken position of Church, were usually executed by Church. Yet knowledge was still collected until in 18th century philosophy of Enlightenment started to dominate the world of ideas in Europe which meant end of abuses of the church and state. Culture in Europe evolved and spread to western world. Current world is based on secular principles. Then there was industrial revolution, and recently information revolution, where national boundaries lose their meaning. But we, as human species, didn't evolved much in past 100 thousand years. If you took a children born 100 thousand years ago and put it in today's society, you wouldn't recognize any difference in it's behavior or look. The way we are evolving right now, we will eventually evolve into eusociality inside a giant anthill. Until we find a way to intelligence augmentations and full body replacement. Human beings will generally be happier when they take rational control of the natural and social forces that control their lives. True freedom for real people (as opposed to abstract Lockeian free men) requires access to health care, universal education, and the amelioration of social inequality. Social democracy pursues economic equality, the democratic control of economic forces, and solidaristic social policies, as well as personal and civil liberties and minority rights. And our scientific and technological knowledge is in exponential progress. Our lives are naturally merging with our technology and it's already happening. So I think our future is the new transhuman race and finally transcending limitations of elementary building blocks of this universe, from which physical laws, spacetime, energy and everything we can observe emerges. In general, I think it's the final destination of any form of intelligence in this universe with an effort of self-preservation.
Matúš Frisík How right and wrong are applied will be different for each situation, but right and wrong still exist.
Well said, I was just about to reply to this lame argument for gods existence which is trotted out time and again. Human beings are co-operative mammals and that's what society is built upon. Altruism is just an extreme form of co-operation for the benefit of the many as opposed to the individual. We can see this at a basic level with parent child relationships, where parents make sacrifices for their children, this expands to foster parents and adopted children and on and on to wider schemas where certain individuals make great sacrifices for the greater good of humanity. A computer would do the same if it's directive was to ensure the continuation of its kind.
ignorant BS--- please read more Collins and William lane craig
how can such an educated have a devastatingly flawed argument? wtf?
he's a scientist who's new to philosophy I guess. He's so shocked that there are things that exist outside what physics describes, he jumps to the conclusion that it's evidence for god. Yes, goodness exists, numbers exist. None of that has anything to do with god.
Collins is a fine example of how the mind can compartmentalize ideas. Even very intelligent people can hold the most irrational beliefs.
We get our morality from our parents (or who ever raises us) the same way and at the same time as we get our language. We are too young to remember which open the door to claims that morality is "written on our hearts" and such nonsense.
We may believe in it because our parents taught us it, but that does not make it untrue. I learned arithmetic in elementary school from teachers but that does not mean that my belief that 2+2=4 is a matter of taste. Our parents could have taught us that cruelty was good but that would have been incorrect.
This is a terrible video. You spend the whole time talking about the existence of moral realism, but you title the video "god from morality"... how the heck does the existence of universal moral truths imply the existence of god? You did not spend one second explaining this.