<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you. That’s all I needed to prove my point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand. But again, this does not address the “should” part of the question.</p>
<p>We “should” not kill people because its ingrained in our biology. Genetics has proven that genes that prevent us from killing others dominates genes that make us all serial killers from an evolutionary perspective. If not genetics, the “social norm” or not being a serial killer has dominated the “social norm” of being a serial killer in a darwinian sense. As in, ideas about a completely ruthless and chaotic society die out in a manner similar to natural selection. Only societies that dont adopt this ideology survive in the long run and those are the ideas that exist today.</p>
<p>It’s likely that a combination of genetic predisposition to not be a serial killer along with that societal aspect is what determines our “moral compass”. The source of what we should do is not divine in origin but evolutionary.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I maintain that a huge part of our actions is dictated by factors we cannot control. In my opinion, I find no evidence in the natural world for free will and thus I believe it does not exist. What I do is because of what my brain tells me to do, a process that’s largely deterministic. If there is a free will, I never rule out all possibilities, even the existence of a god, however unlikely, it would play a subordinate role to these natural and societal impulses we have.</p>
<p>^ I cannot accept a deterministic world, because it invalidates the existence of reasoning. If what appears to be a logical deduction is in fact a deterministic outcome of chemical reactions in brain cells, what makes the deduction more meaningful than a roll of a die?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>why is meaningfulness a standard for what you accept? What is true is not necessarily meaningful. It’s by pure chance that you’re born in a developed part of the world. Chances are you could have been born in Sub Saharan Africa and died before the age of 3. The fact that you weren’t isnt meaningful, it is random chance. It’s a roll of a die.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a circular argument. You first need to establish that biology should be the determinant of our actions.</p>
<p>In other words, what is problematic with committing suicide, despite the fact that it runs against biology? Until you establish biology as the supreme authority on what we SHOULD do, saying that we should follow biology is a vacuous statement.</p>
<p>This may be easier if you just have a series of statements that leads to your conclusion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The thing is, I don’t accept the existence of agency. We dont do what we should do because we decide to. We do those things because we are demanded to by an unbroken chain of causes and effects.</p>
<p>I am disappointed the mifune did not answer the question I posed several pages ago.</p>
<p>Or maybe he isn’t free? Wait for him to log in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So if your deduction about the state of the universe is a roll of a die, why should I believe it true? If it is true, it means your or my thoughts on the matter have no reason to be true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, assume that is true. You have just invalidated all debate on all subjects for all time. You have even invalidated your ability to assume that it is true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So it is all irrelevant. Life is utterly irrelevant. I have no choice but to be religious. I have no choice but to do X. </p>
<p>In other words, you also agree that morality is non-existent.</p>
<p>No I haven’t. We can still have opinions and determine things to be true and not true without having free will.</p>
<p>And yes, life is irrelevant. You have no choice but you can be swayed with arguments. You don’t decide to change your mind, you do because your brain interprets facts and analyzes them.</p>
<p>Again, I don’t believe that agency exists. It might but I see no evidence that it does.</p>
<p>^ Yes, you in fact have. If you are right, then absolutely nothing makes your viewpoint more valid than mine. Without something by which to judge viewpoints, all debate is invalid. It is impossible to show any reason to believe that the way outside conditions affected the chemical reactions in your brain have any correlation with fact unless you assume that you have the ability to think and make decisions.</p>
<p>you just got FACED!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Morality is irrelevant under your system, because we are all compelled by forces of nature. You stated yourself that there is no morality</p>
<p>I understand what you mean about the fate of the universe being pre-determined. But consider this: in order to know the fate of the universe, we must measure everything. This creates two problems. First, the energy required to do so is enormous. Secondly, measuring the universe exactly would be impossible because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. </p>
<p>The consequence of this is that we cannot know the fate of the universe. This means that all one can know is the present, so even if fate is pre-determined, it does not affect us.</p>
<p>that’s when morality kicks in … since we are so irrelevant in the large scope of things, we can make our own decisions w/out affecting the predetermined fate of the universe.</p>
<p>Alas, due to a variety of preexisting obligations, I shall not be able to respond to the very thought-provoking responses on this thread. :(</p>
<p>Until Saturday.</p>
<p>Definitely science. Religion can be disproved and it’s not logical. No evidence, where as with science there is plenty.</p>
<p>People can still be sane without religion. Example: atheists. It’s not a big deal. It’s not like people go insane everyday not knowing the answer to how the universe started and where the edge of the universe is.</p>
<p>As human society evolves and progresses more and more, science is becoming more and more important. Do computers, the internet, this website forum, run on religion? No. It runs on science. The only things that really rely on religion are things with pretty much direct religious affiliations.</p>
<p>Religion doesn’t give us a sense of morality. It takes advantage of our fear of the unknown and causes us to suck up to anything that is intangible (therefore don’t have to prove it’s existence) to do anything.</p>