# Origin of good.



## gordon 2 (Dec 15, 2015)

What is/are the origin(s) of good? Or goodness as in: virtuous, right, commendable, correct.???

? A good person.
? A good reason.
? A good action.
? Good work.
? Good art.

What is the bedrock or sand from which you extract your understanding of "good" ?


----------



## 660griz (Dec 15, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> What is/are the origin(s) of good? Or goodness as in: virtuous, right, commendable, correct.???
> 
> ? A good person.
> ? A good reason.
> ...



Environment plays a huge role. Evolution plays a role as well.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> What is/are the origin(s) of good? Or goodness as in: virtuous, right, commendable, correct.???
> 
> ? A good person.  I would say a person that seeks at very least to do no harm but better if they seek to advance human flourishing and well being.
> ? A good reason.  That depends on what you're trying to accomplish.
> ...



I strive towards rationality and love.  Actually, rationality will get you to love.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 15, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> What is/are the origin(s) of good? Or goodness as in: virtuous, right, commendable, correct.???
> 
> ? A good person.
> ? A good reason.
> ...



I think the golden rule is a good starting point. It is mutually beneficial for all of us to consider other people's wants and needs when we take action.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 15, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I think the golden rule is a good starting point. It is mutually beneficial for all of us to consider other people's wants and needs when we take action.



Yep. Evolution of empathy found in almost every culture.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I think the golden rule is a good starting point. It is mutually beneficial for all of us to consider other people's wants and needs when we take action.



Beneficial for whom, the specific person or the society in which the person lives?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Beneficial for whom, the specific person or the society in which the person lives?



"mutually"


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> "mutually"



Irrational.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Irrational.



Then there's nothing left to say......except Amen, I suppose.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Irrational.



How so? Everyone benefits when there is less unnecessary squabbling. That's energy that can be spent on more productive pursuits like finding food and making babies.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> How so? Everyone benefits when there is less unnecessary squabbling. That's energy that can be spent on more productive pursuits like finding food and making babies.



It's not rational to think that what is 'unnecessary' is constant for a whole species. It's also not rational to think that what may benefit me in any given situation will also benefit you in those same situations. It could be said that, more times than not, what benefits me will not benefit you, and may, in fact, cause you harm. It is even less rational to think that nature, or whatever the driving mechanism for evolution is now, can differentiate between what is good for an individual against what is good for the species as a whole so that mutual benefit could be possible.

It is wholly irrational to say, Love your enemies and to do good to those that despitefully use you. I prefer irrationality.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 15, 2015)

"For goodness' sake"

Does the above expression require an apostrophe?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> It's not rational to think that what is 'unnecessary' is constant for a whole species. It's also not rational to think that what may benefit me in any given situation will also benefit you in those same situations. It could be said that, more times than not, what benefits me will not benefit you, and may, in fact, cause you harm. It is even less rational to think that nature, or whatever the driving mechanism for evolution is now, can differentiate between what is good for an individual against what is good for the species as a whole so that mutual benefit could be possible.
> 
> It is wholly irrational to say, Love your enemies and to do good to those that despitefully use you. I prefer irrationality.



Except you don't actually practice that unless you are a pacifist.  Which is also irrational.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 16, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> It could be said that, more times than not, what benefits me will not benefit you, and may, in fact, cause you harm.



Are you really arguing against the golden rule? 

If we are potential competitors for resources in a pre-historical time.. you don't think the food that you could eat would also be a good thing for me? The women that you could mate with to bear your children would not also be good for me to bear me children? That a fire and shelter you built wouldn't be equally as good for me as it would be for you? 

We aren't talking about favorite flavors of jellybeans here, we are talking about necessities for survival that are more easily attained if individuals within a species cooperate instead of competing. 



> It is even less rational to think that nature, or whatever the driving mechanism for evolution is now, can differentiate between what is good for an individual against what is good for the species as a whole so that mutual benefit could be possible.



I agree that the driving mechanisms of evolution do not 'differentiate'. It is not a thinking or guided process in such a way. However if pro-social behavior did not increase an individual's chance at passing along their genes then I don't believe evolution would have favored the development of social animals.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 16, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Are you really arguing against the golden rule?



No. I'm simply saying you've misused it, in this case.



> If we are potential competitors for resources in a pre-historical time.. you don't think the food that you could eat would also be a good thing for me? The women that you could mate with to bear your children would not also be good for me to bear me children? That a fire and shelter you built wouldn't be equally as good for me as it would be for you?
> 
> We aren't talking about favorite flavors of jellybeans here, we are talking about necessities for survival that are more easily attained if individuals within a species cooperate instead of competing.



If it were pre-historical times I would probably just kill you and take your woman and your land...i.e. Good for me, bad for you, possibly good for the whole (depends on how greedy I am). Fortunately, we aren't animals and so don't behave like them as a general rule.





> I agree that the driving mechanisms of evolution do not 'differentiate'. It is not a thinking or guided process in such a way. However if pro-social behavior did not increase an individual's chance at passing along their genes then I don't believe evolution would have favored the development of social animals.



Good, because it didn't.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 16, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> "For goodness' sake"
> 
> Does the above expression require an apostrophe?



Depends. Hidden message?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 16, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> No. I'm simply saying you've misused it, in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So let's assume the guy you killed was in your same tribe. The next day 2 guys from a different tribe show up wanting your stuff.
Still good for you that you killed him?
Or would you have been better off working something out that was beneficial to both of you so that he was still alive to help you fight off the 2 guys?


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 16, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> No. I'm simply saying you've misused it, in this case.



I used it as an example of a good starting point for moral thought. How is that misusing it?



> If it were pre-historical times I would probably just kill you and take your woman and your land...i.e. Good for me, bad for you, possibly good for the whole (depends on how greedy I am).



You're simply ignoring the fact that there is a 50% chance that I'll kill you instead? If you believe that there is no benefit to individuals from a survival standpoint from living peaceably within social groups in spite of all evidence to the contrary then there is nothing to discuss here. This may be the most ridiculous position you have taken yet.



> Fortunately, we aren't animals and so don't behave like them as a general rule.



Except we are animals and far from the only social animals. Primates, Ants, Bees, Dogs, Wolves.. you get the point. I agree that we are a very special case as clearly evidenced by the fact that we are even discussing this, but we are made of the same stuff, and have many of the same types of problems as other animals.



> Good, because it didn't.



It clearly did.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2015)

EverGreen,

You're running out of gas.  I've seen it before.  

Thanks for participating in the discussions.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 16, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> EverGreen,
> 
> You're running out of gas.  I've seen it before.
> 
> Thanks for participating in the discussions.




Very little gets by you... I like that. But, yes, I have to admit, y'all keep a man on his toes. Alas I have quite a bit of clerical work on my desk this morning. I'll write a code to do the repetitious stuff, but it's still a sizable mound.

Good day to you, sir.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Very little gets by you... I like that. But, yes, I have to admit, y'all keep a man on his toes. Alas I have quite a bit of clerical work on my desk this morning. I'll write a code to do the repetitious stuff, but it's still a sizable mound.
> 
> Good day to you, sir.




Again, thanks for participating.  You did well fielding three or four lines of questions at once.


----------



## Israel (Dec 21, 2015)

Do unto others...is a remarkably self interested instruction. Or do you imagine God less than self interested?
"All day long I hold my hand out to a disobedient and gainsaying people".

And "when you were young you girt yourself and went where you willed, but when you are old, you shall stretch forth your hands and another shall gird you, and carry you where you would not"

A change toward the One, who says, and does...very much apart from what says...and does not do.
And, everything is changing.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 21, 2015)

Israel said:


> Do unto others...is a remarkably self interested instruction. Or do you imagine God less than self interested?
> "All day long I hold my hand out to a disobedient and gainsaying people".
> 
> And "when you were young you girt yourself and went where you willed, but when you are old, you shall stretch forth your hands and another shall gird you, and carry you where you would not"
> ...


All anyone does is imagine a god.


----------



## Israel (Dec 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> All anyone does is imagine a god.


 Is that true?

Do they also, then, imagine themselves?
And, if so...what is the thing that is supra-imagination that tells them so?

Is it you?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 21, 2015)

Israel said:


> Is that true?
> 
> Do they also, then, imagine themselves?
> And, if so...what is the thing that is supra-imagination that tells them so?
> ...


It is true
They do not imagine themselves but can just as easily as they imagine gods.
Chemical reactions and electrical impulses in the cells of our brains.
If it is not me then it is a REALLY good imitation.

We can grow babies in a test tube using chemistry and we can clone using dna. We also make likenesses of ourselves in our own image.


----------



## BROWNIE (Dec 29, 2015)

Psalm 14:3 & Romans 3:10-12 
gordon2 - your question is the answer. You see the problem is that we all think we are good people. That's why you have the ten commandments. Its not that we can ever live up to them. they should be a mirror for us to judge ourselves by. We have all broken all the commandments. We have all stolen so we are all thieves. We have all lied so we are all liars. Jesus said if you look with lust you commit adultery in your heart Mat. 5:28. Which one of us hasn't done that. Jesus also said if you get angry you commit murder Mat. 5:21-22. have you ever got angry at some one (maybe for something like cutting you off in traffic)? 
 The origin of good comes from God but, we are a fallen man full of sin, greed, and selfishness. the problem is we think we are good but we're not. That's why you need Jesus. because God is good and perfect and with out Jesus, God will judge you and I like the law breakers we are. But Jesus died a cruel bloody death so you and I could escape the wrath of God. All you have to do is realize this turn to God and repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus Christ. Just realizing What Jesus did for sinners like you and I should be enough to break your heart.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 30, 2015)

BROWNIE said:


> That's why you need Jesus. because God is good and perfect and with out Jesus, God will judge you and I like the law breakers we are. But Jesus died a cruel bloody death so you and I could escape the wrath of God.


 Wait. I thought God and Jesus was the same thing. 


> Just realizing What Jesus did for sinners like you and I should be enough to break your heart.



If I believed the bible and the things done in God's name, it would break my heart.


----------



## BROWNIE (Dec 30, 2015)

660griz said:


> Wait. I thought God and Jesus was the same thing.
> 
> If I believed the bible and the things done in God's name, it would break my heart.



You thought right .

What you and I believe really doesn't mean a whole lot. What matters is truth. I can believe or not believe whatever I want. that's just free will. I can not make you believe the bible nor is it my job to try and make you believe the bible. Its my job to tell you about Jesus, what you do with Jesus is up to you.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 30, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I used it as an example of a good starting point for moral thought. How is that misusing it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If we are simply animals, is it immoral that I shoot a deer or hog? What about another animal like a person?


----------



## 660griz (Dec 30, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> If we are simply animals, is it immoral that I shoot a deer or hog? What about another animal like a person?



As long as you don't waste the meat. 

Seriously, we are predators. Thus the binocular vision. We kill stuff and eat it. It's what we do.

There are folks that eat other folks. I am sure it is not immoral for them to eat a person. It is for us. Different morals, different societies. 
We have covered this in a previous lesson. 

"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." (Genesis 9:3)
EVERYTHING that lives? Hmmmm


----------



## welderguy (Dec 30, 2015)

God made a definate difference in humans and animals physically,but far more importantly,spiritually.He tells us how in Ecclesiastes 3:21.

21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?


----------



## 660griz (Dec 30, 2015)

BROWNIE said:


> Its my job to tell you about Jesus, what you do with Jesus is up to you.



Its my job to tell you about Santa Claus, what you do with Santa Claus is up to you.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 30, 2015)

welderguy said:


> God made a definate difference in humans and animals physically,but far more importantly,spiritually.He tells us how in Ecclesiastes 3:21.
> 
> 21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?



Science did that too. Called homo sapiens.
http://christianity.about.com/od/whatdoesthebiblesay/f/animalsinheaven.htm


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 30, 2015)

BROWNIE said:


> You thought right .
> 
> What you and I believe really doesn't mean a whole lot. What matters is truth. I can believe or not believe whatever I want. that's just free will. I can not make you believe the bible nor is it my job to try and make you believe the bible. Its my job to tell you about Jesus, what you do with Jesus is up to you.


Nearly every A/A in here were raised in a Christian home and were once believers. We are already familiar with the stories about Jesus.


----------



## BROWNIE (Dec 30, 2015)

660griz said:


> Its my job to tell you about Santa Claus, what you do with Santa Claus is up to you.



There's your problem. You got to much faith in Santa Claus. He'll let you down.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 30, 2015)

BROWNIE said:


> There's your problem. You got to much faith in Santa Claus. He'll let you down.



No he won't. We are not meant to understand Santa Claus. Santa Claus works in mysterious ways. He knows what is best for you. You may want a Red Ryder BB gun but, Santa knows you will shoot your eye out so, marshmallow gun it is.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 30, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> If we are simply animals, is it immoral that I shoot a deer or hog? What about another animal like a person?


No.
Society justifies it in certain circumstances.


----------



## BROWNIE (Dec 30, 2015)

660griz said:


> No he won't. We are not meant to understand Santa Claus. Santa Claus works in mysterious ways. He knows what is best for you. You may want a Red Ryder BB gun but, Santa knows you will shoot your eye out so, marshmallow gun it is.



That's funny. Wish you could see me laughing but, there's a great gulf fixed between us.


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 13, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> It is wholly irrational to say, Love your enemies and to do good to those that despitefully use you. I prefer irrationality.



Why?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Feb 14, 2016)

atlashunter said:


> Why?



Not sure which part of my statement your question applies. If it's the first, that should be obvious; if it isn't, I then direct you here...http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=860212


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Not sure which part of my statement your question applies. If it's the first, that should be obvious; if it isn't, I then direct you here...http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=860212



Ah.  Getting back to this.  We never finished our conversation.  Care to continue it in that thread?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Feb 14, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Ah.  Getting back to this.  We never finished our conversation.  Care to continue it in that thread?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 10, 2016)

Hello again, do you like my hat?

It seems to me that it all boils down to some basic questions. Can we find the truth on our own? Does science get us there's? Are we GOOD enough? Is it that simple? Are humans the answer to their own problems? Wait, that might be the key. It does not appear that we ARE the answer to our own problems, else we would already have it figured out. After bazillions of years of evolution, things would have surely worked themselves out. Maybe we need some help. Or maybe it is all chaos and random stench. What do we need to examine to understand it all? That is a serious question.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 10, 2016)

ted_BSR said:


> What do we need to examine to understand it all?



Everything we don't understand. And, revisit the stuff we think we understand.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 10, 2016)

660griz said:


> Everything we don't understand. And, revisit the stuff we think we understand.



Does that mean I have to take chemistry again?


----------



## 660griz (Mar 10, 2016)

ted_BSR said:


> Does that mean I have to take chemistry again?



I am afraid so. Different teacher though.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 10, 2016)

ted_BSR said:


> Hello again, do you like my hat?
> 
> It seems to me that it all boils down to some basic questions. Can we find the truth on our own? Does science get us there's? Are we GOOD enough? Is it that simple? Are humans the answer to their own problems? Wait, that might be the key. It does not appear that we ARE the answer to our own problems, else we would already have it figured out. After bazillions of years of evolution, things would have surely worked themselves out. Maybe we need some help. Or maybe it is all chaos and random stench. What do we need to examine to understand it all? That is a serious question.


Not sure I agree with the "should already have it figured out". By what scale?
If we don't get smoked by an asteroid etc. who knows how long we will exist.
We might be in the just learning to crawl stage as opposed to the have it all figured out stage.
Same with evolution.
What do we need to understand it all is an interesting question.
Alot of people want to understand it the way that suits them best.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 10, 2016)

In this day and age technology allows almost instantaneous satisfaction regarding getting an answer to just about everything we do know. But look at how long it took us to come this far. Progression is amazingly fast but we could still be in the infancy stage. 50 years has propelled us in giant leaps and bounds in almost every field so what will a thousand years do? Then again, we may not make it another 24hrs.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 10, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Not sure I agree with the "should already have it figured out". By what scale?
> If we don't get smoked by an asteroid etc. who knows how long we will exist.
> We might be in the just learning to crawl stage as opposed to the have it all figured out stage.
> Same with evolution.
> ...



The scale is bazillions of years.

Understanding something the way that suits you best is just opinion.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> In this day and age technology allows almost instantaneous satisfaction regarding getting an answer to just about everything we do know. But look at how long it took us to come this far. Progression is amazingly fast but we could still be in the infancy stage. 50 years has propelled us in giant leaps and bounds in almost every field so what will a thousand years do? Then again, we may not make it another 24hrs.



Or think we know, the answer you get is not necessarily the truth. I don't really think our progress is actually progress, of course I think a lot of the order we create is actually chaos. When you take the leaves in your yard and make orderly piles of them, I believe you have created chaos, because the leaves were exactly where they were supposed to be in the first place. When we cut down trees and pave roads to organize how we travel, we have disorganized the natural state, and therefore created chaos.

Good exists whether we understand it or not.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 10, 2016)

ted_BSR said:


> Or think we know, the answer you get is not necessarily the truth. I don't really think our progress is actually progress, of course I think a lot of the order we create is actually chaos. When you take the leaves in your yard and make orderly piles of them, I believe you have created chaos, because the leaves were exactly where they were supposed to be in the first place. When we cut down trees and pave roads to organize how we travel, we have disorganized the natural state, and therefore created chaos.
> 
> Good exists whether we understand it or not.


I can buy into that.

Seems as anything we do to benefit ourselves or our species is deemed good but is it outside of our interpretation?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I can buy into that.
> 
> Seems as anything we do to benefit ourselves or our species is deemed good but is it outside of our interpretation?



Exactly!


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 10, 2016)

ted_BSR said:


> The scale is bazillions of years.
> 
> Understanding something the way that suits you best is just opinion.


Yes and how would one determine how much we SHOULD have figured out? Compared to what? 
To truly understand something, let's use the creation of the world as an example, you would have to discard anything and everything that wasn't a proven fact.
Are you still trying to understand the creation of the world or have you filled in the gaps in our knowledge with an understanding that suits you best?


----------



## Israel (Mar 11, 2016)

Two men stood down the road from one another. "Where are you they hollered?"

The one said "I am near the bend by that tall oak" 
The other said "I can barely see that, it's shrouded in fog."

"No, no" said the first, "I am right next to it...it's not shrouded in fog at all. it's clear as day to me...where are you?"

"I'm down here by the water tower...you can't miss me"...

"No", said the first, "But now I clearly see the problem...it's you who is shrouded in fog"


----------



## bullethead (Mar 11, 2016)

Are Humans Significant? A Scientist Answers

Sami Mikhail

10 March 2016
Iâ€™m Dr Sami Mikhail and Iâ€™m what youâ€™d call a dirt-person or a gravel monkey â€“ the technical term is geologist. Iâ€™m presently a Lecturer in Earth Sciences at the University of St Andrews, and I have a disturbingly strong passion for understanding how planets form their atmospheres. Sometimes I ponder abstract concepts like why Venus and Earth are so different and so similar at the same time, and if diamonds are still forming in the deep Earth right now, as my website will attest. However, I also reflect on a number of issues that arise following discussions with my colleagues, students, after reading the news, or while Iâ€™m procrastinating. One such topic is:CensoredWhat is the significance of humanity?

Naturally, as a scientist, I always consider all possibilities before deriving a conclusion (in light of data.) In this case my logic leads me to conclude that the answer is double-sided. Letâ€™s see where you standâ€¦Censored

The case that we are insignificant:

Humanity has landed people on the moon, and landed robots on Mars, Venus, Titan, an asteroid (meteorite), and recently, on a comet. Weâ€™ve also sent a satellite beyond the edge of our own solar system (with a message saying â€˜helloâ€™ attached to it â€“ no joke.) Because we are clever animals, we have invented numerous methods of prediction, quantification, observation, and recording â€“ this is colloquially known as 'science'. Furthermore, we record results and theories through the medium of scripture and thus we learn, collectively, generation by generation. This process was phrased, metaphorically, by the French philosopher Bernard of Chartres (in the 12th Century), who wrote â€˜nanos gigantum humeris insidentesâ€™Censored(this basically means we are all small, but cumulatively we can see as far as a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants.) In effect, I know a lot of what I know because Iâ€™ve read a lot of books, not because Iâ€™ve discovered it myself. Thus by extrapolation, this means we (the people of 2016 with access to the internet in our pockets) should be the most informed humans of all time.

Based on the cumulative efforts of scientists over the years, we now know that our solar system is roughly 4.6 billion years old, the universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old, and the cosmos is really big. It would take something travelling at the speed of light 91 billion years to get from one side to the other and that's just the bit of the cosmos that's visible to usâ€“ aka, itâ€™s bloody huge. We also know that life began between three and four billion years ago, and has been a been a mainstay on Earth ever since â€“ despite some really serious set-backs, termed mass-extinctions. Conversely, human beings have been on Earth for about one million years (but weâ€™ve only been civilised for the last 50 thousand of those years.) We also know that Earth is about 6700 km deep, from surface to the centre of the core, yet the deepest weâ€™ve drilled into Earth is only 12 km (the Kola Borehole in Russia.) More to the point, we are terrestrial animals. This means we solely occupy the thin layer of dry land exposed above the waterline, with the exception of a few people temporarily living on the ISS in a low-Earth orbit.



As a species, our survival ultimately depends on us being lucky enough not to suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs â€“ who were killed by a massive asteroid impact 65 million years ago. Or the bizarre looking creatures called Trilobites â€“ who were killed by large-scale gas-rich volcanism poisoning the atmosphere and oceans 251 million years ago. Take note: both the arrival of a terrifying and massive asteroid and a deadly large-scale gas-rich volcanism will happen again. Thatâ€™s a fact. So, what can we do to stop this inevitable catastrophe? In a word: nothing.

And so, we realise, a) that we have only existed for a fraction of Earthâ€™s history and b) that we have absolutely no control over things like earthquakes, volcanism, and asteroid impacts.

If we were wiped out right now, weâ€™d only amount to a very thin layer of rock that preserves the evidence of our existence.


Humanity occupies a very small part of a very small rock in the middle of a small galaxy within a massive cosmos (note, we cannot see the edge of the universe, itâ€™s that big.) If we were wiped out right now, weâ€™d only amount to a very thin layer of rock that preserves the evidence of our existence. In fact, thereâ€™d be less preservation of humans as fossils than there would be the things weâ€™ve built.

We are not the masters of the Earth, or the solar system, or the cosmos. We are just a highly intelligent, bipedal, omnivorous bald ape who can video call across a planetâ€™s surface, send people and robots into space, then either return them to Earth, or send back data (e.g. photos). Geologically speaking, we are totally insignificant.

In 1637 the brilliant French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist René Descartes wrote "je pense, donc je suis" which translates to "I think, therefore I am" to describe our undoubted existence. Now we can play with the two preceding quotes to state: â€˜Thanks to several millennia worth of pain-staking scientific enquiry and scholarly curating I know some facts, therefore, I am acutely aware of how utterly insignificant I am.â€™

The case that we are significant:

Thereâ€™s no point trying to argue that humans are significant on cosmic or planetary scales, because we are not. But what about the potential for humans to be classed as significant on the surface of the pale-blue dot called Earth? After all, we can manipulate DNA, redirect rivers, build canals, and fertilise infertile land; we have God-like powers. We can harness energy from the sun directly (solar) and indirectly (fossil fuels) and we can even harness energy from the tides of the ocean (hydroelectricity) and from the movement of the air (wind). We not only have the ability to harness energy, but we can also store and transport it (in batteries). But these are all ways in which we exploit; what about our influence?

We have rendered an excessive amount of animals extinct to the point of fitting the definition of a mass extinction. In fact, due to our ongoing activities (urbanisation, pollution, hunting) modern extinction rates are so high that some researchers suggest a mass extinction is actually under way â€” some say we are living through the sixth (big) mass extinction to have occurred over Earth's 4.5 billion years of existence. But this one isnâ€™t the work of a volcano, or massive asteroid. The cause of this one is humanity â€“ that previously described insignificant bald ape.

In other news, we have accidentally made a new landmass in the Pacific Ocean comprised entirely of plastic. This new plastic landmass even has a name: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch. The size of this â€˜patchâ€™ is poorly constrained; some say it covers 0.41% and some say it covers 8.1% of the whole Pacific Ocean (the largest ocean on the planet.) In fact, some media reports claim it is up to twice the size of the United States (NB: this is just one of the reasons why we should recycle.)

Humans are master engineers; we live in an almost synthetic bubble made of plastic, metal, and concrete. This artificial dependence for most of what we do requires a lot of energy (like reading an article in an online-only magazine.) This is where another, invisible issue crops up: Gas.

We generate electricity in the same way that the ancients did. Thales of Miletus was a Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer, who noted in 600 BC, that if one rubs amber with the fur of a cat, the amber becomes charged and feathers will be attracted to it â€“ this because it becomes electrically charged (not that he used the term â€˜electrically chargedâ€™.) Now, electricity obeys the laws of physics (like everything does), and therefore generating electricity is fundamentally understood and is the same today as it was the moment of the big bang.

Also, we know that energy cannot be made or destroyed and it is only transferable from one state to another, so we need to convert heat or kinetic energy (movement) into electricity. We burn oil or coal, use a blade to force motion due to wind or water motion, or we can use solar panels to directly harness the sunâ€™s energy and cut out the middle man. Another law of physics states that â€˜every action has an equal and opposing reaction.â€™ This is important. When we use oil or coal to generate electricity we are causing an exothermic reaction (a reaction which produces heat and something else.) In short, we add oxygen to hydrocarbons with some heat and this causes them to burn and release a lot of energy. This simple reaction generates a lot of energy in the form of heat to drive turbines that we use to generate electricity. However, this process converts hydrocarbons (molecules made of carbon and hydrogen) into water plus carbon dioxide. This is an awesome way of generating energy. It is brilliant for that purpose.

But thereâ€™s a big BUT. This process generates carbon dioxide, an invisible and odourless gas. With a global population of around 7 billion and growing (most of which are consuming a lot of energy) the cumulative effect is we are generating a lot of carbon dioxide. This invisible and odourless gas is great at trapping energy from the sun, so more carbon dioxide means higher temperatures. This is a fact; there is no debate.

Another undeniable fact is that the world is warming because of humans. For example, if we hadnâ€™t evolved around 1 million years ago, and hadnâ€™t began burning fossil fuelsen masseCensoredsince the industrial revolution, the projected future and the current average temperature of Earthâ€™s surface wouldnâ€™t be rising like it is. This leaves us with two options: carry on as we are and make unrealistic plans to move whole cities and some nations to high ground and accept that a few billion may die. Or react by utilising less destabilising energy sources. The choice is oursâ€¦ but letâ€™s see what happens.Censored

Despite our great genius as a species, how we choose to do this is presently a discussion for politicians. We wouldnâ€™t expect a politician to decide on a person's medical treatment â€“ which is one reason why lots of people are CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensored off with Mr. Jeremy Hunt right now â€“ and likewise, we shouldnâ€™t let the fate of our environment be decided by politicians who lack any reasonable understanding of the science (surely, right?)

Environmentally speaking, it is clear that humans are geo-engineering the planet and therefore there is no doubt that we are significant. We have great power in the tiny niche we occupy. So while we are geologically insignificant, we are environmentally potent â€“ and dangerous.

The power to consciously geo-engineer the environment is potentially disastrous. But I prefer the glass half-full approach. So letâ€™s re-phrase that last bit. The power to consciously geo-engineer the environment is a skill that means we can improve our living-conditions, and the collective living-conditions of the other life forms that share their lives with us on the only habitable planet we know of, the pale blue dot we call home.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 11, 2016)

Uhm, that guy does not know anything about science. Nothing he described has anything to do with the scientific method. I got to the second paragraph and I was like.... Oh, boy, here we go!


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 11, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Yes and how would one determine how much we SHOULD have figured out? Compared to what?
> To truly understand something, let's use the creation of the world as an example, you would have to discard anything and everything that wasn't a proven fact.
> Are you still trying to understand the creation of the world or have you filled in the gaps in our knowledge with an understanding that suits you best?



Yes Walt. I would hope with that scale, we would have a clue at least...

Nothing can be proven as fact in a philosophical sense, so we can throw that out right away.

I would never claim to fill in the gaps of OUR knowledge. I don't know what you know. I can not. You can not know what I know.

The singularity of the human condition is often overlooked. Try as we might, we can never really walk a mile in another human's shoes. We can think about it, imagine it, even have real empathy, but we can not really ever do it.

My point is, the truth exists. It does not change according to our understanding, or lack thereof.


----------



## Israel (Mar 12, 2016)

ted_BSR said:


> Yes Walt. I would hope with that scale, we would have a clue at least...
> 
> Nothing can be proven as fact in a philosophical sense, so we can throw that out right away.
> 
> ...




That's an interesting observation. And I quite believe it...especially as to the "try as we might"...

The believer has come to know, if I may speak as one..."there's something going on". And, for Christ's sake (not Chrissake) "going on" may take to it as much implication as bearable. 
We accede to the reality of truth, perhaps in the measure of our own apprehension it is as ethereal to us as need be, (or can be, dependent upon our understanding); but regardless, as I saw Pnome mention elsewhere, we are convinced of "the meaning". 

In whatever measure any of us may bear testimony of seeking to once be free of it, (The Meaning of all) but having found it inescapable to ourselves, we might agree to the saying of "once I believed I could, and was in control of "making" the meaning of my own life, but I discovered a resistance, and ultimately not just "a" resistance, but a perfect opposition to it...toward the perfection of frustration.
The death that speaks to, and of, the finality of meaning became quite obvious. At least it speaks of finality to "my" meaning, but, because I am circumscribed by it, (at all points) death itself becomes as equally obvious as being part and parcel of "the meaning" existent outside, or above, in super position, to my own meaning. Death then, is imposed by "the" meaning to be something experienced, taken note of, perhaps even, apprehended.

For the believer, then, it comes as no surprise that what is for every man a question begotten of this apprehension of "death on every side" (and "apprehension" meant in both senses, both to fear and to be aware of) the answer is provided of grace, mercy, and benevolence. Indeed, the matter of "death" is more central to what he has come to say in his believing of his "belief"...than is testified of anything else of his creed.

'Now hath my soul been troubled, and what? shall I say -- Father, save me from this hour? -- but because of this I came to this hour;

Jesus testifies it is for the very purpose of dying "this death" that all else has been. Whatever of miracle (believed or not) wise sayings (trusted or not)...of admonition, warning, rebuke, comfort or encouragement...all leads to this singular death experience of, and by the Lord.

Of this, and by this, all of faith springs. The centrality is, and cannot be denied (which for the believer comes with full meaning) but to others, is veiled. For what is become in man's apprehension the final, the ultimate, the beyond which cannot be seen, nor meaning perceived of any meaning is either now apprehended (now meaning _only _understood) as the necessity to the disclosure of what once veiled to all is plain... "The" meaning. 

Only through what once "meant" end of all in man's understanding can this misapprehension of finality and distorted perception of ultimate meaning be abolished. By the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

It is so central that "even" the confessed unbeliever balks here, he cannot escape the significance of it as dividing line. And it is so central to the believer it is given, (perhaps not as strict prescription) but must surely be found in his profession of Jesus being "alive". (If you believe in your heart God raised Jesus from the dead...)

This is where the great impasse and ultimately discovered distinctions of the many "gods" bandied about, thrown in the mix, so to speak by the unbeliever for confusion, is made plain. "If you believe in Jesus, why don't you see to us it's as believing in the 'flying spaghetti monster'? They are all equally as fanciful."

It is far more than acceding to "a" god who in fancy, or absurdity (if granted, as mentioned as necessity in some other post)...can just "do" anything...but specifically "The" God who both purposed Jesus to die, and in same purpose, to raise Him. 

Precisely that man might know..."death" is not the ultimate of meaning. "The" meaning is over it, in every way superior to it, the master of it, and yes, it's imposition upon any man, is at His will, alone. Death holds not dominion, the God of both life, and death, does.
For the man who would "make" his own meaning, death is everywhere, inescapable. His being "good", cannot go past it, his being wise cannot exceed it, his being evil will  not add to it, nor appease it, (it will come for him)...and this is precisely the divide.

Men with bravado, but no conviction, will boast "I have accepted my own death, I am reconciled to it...as ultimate end of me" As if they apprehend their finality.
And one question then need only be asked "why, then, do you keep on speaking?" You testify against yourself.

The believer, if believer, though, has also a similar question. "If you believe your end is in Christ, why do _you_ go on speaking...?"

Mercy is, and always has been, the only fit answer.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2016)

ted_BSR said:


> Uhm, that guy does not know anything about science. Nothing he described has anything to do with the scientific method. I got to the second paragraph and I was like.... Oh, boy, here we go!


But you don't trust the scientific method anyway.


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 12, 2016)

Israel said:


> That's an interesting observation. And I quite believe it...especially as to the "try as we might"...
> 
> The believer has come to know, if I may speak as one..."there's something going on". And, for Christ's sake (not Chrissake) "going on" may take to it as much implication as bearable.
> We accede to the reality of truth, perhaps in the measure of our own apprehension it is as ethereal to us as need be, (or can be, dependent upon our understanding); but regardless, as I saw Pnome mention elsewhere, we are convinced of "the meaning".
> ...



Just as the many references to the imminence of temporal Kingdom events are there to assure us of the immanence of the King.  Perhaps the many references to the specific events at the end of temporal things are there to assure us that we free to “first seek the Kingdom”, and it is that of which we should speak.


----------



## Israel (Mar 12, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> Just as the many references to the imminence of temporal Kingdom events are there to assure us of the immanence of the King.  Perhaps the many references to the specific events at the end of temporal things are there to assure us that we free to “first seek the Kingdom”, and it is that of which we should speak.



Amen!
The reign of God in all things!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2016)

Amen, to the non unique claims by all religions that owe kingdoms to their king. A believer is a believer and they all credit their gods for the exact same things.


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 13, 2016)

That seems to be related to — The thesis is proven by unsubstantiated generalities and the antithesis is refuted by statements unrelated to the thesis or the antithesis — which I’m still working on.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> That seems to be related to — The thesis is proven by unsubstantiated generalities and the antithesis is refuted by statements unrelated to the thesis or the antithesis — which I’m still working on.


That sums up post #60 perfectly.


----------



## Israel (Mar 13, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Amen, to the non unique claims by all religions that owe kingdoms to their king. A believer is a believer and they all credit their gods for the exact same things.



I don't know that I've ever stated a religion. Nor did Hummer.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2016)

Israel said:


> I don't know that I've ever stated a religion. Nor did Hummer.



You don't have to, you represent all believers in religions with broad non unique statements like above.
Unless you are British subjects or there is another Christ you are talking about?


----------



## Israel (Mar 13, 2016)

bullethead said:


> You don't have to, you represent all believers in religions with broad non unique statements like above.
> Unless you are British subjects or there is another Christ you are talking about?



Here's a funny thing about painters with broad brushes, they often have to go back and do touch ups.
But even he is still, at best, dealing with the periphery.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 13, 2016)

bullethead said:


> But you don't trust the scientific method anyway.



Incorrect.

I make my living by it, I completely agree with it, and  I recognize that it does not lead to the truth.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 13, 2016)

Grace.


----------



## pnome (Mar 15, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> What is/are the origin(s) of good? Or goodness as in: virtuous, right, commendable, correct.???
> 
> ? A good person.
> ? A good reason.
> ...



"Moral behavior is survival behavior, above the individual level." - Robert A. Heinlein

What is "good" is that which we perceive as being beneficial to survival, for either ourselves, or others with whom we empathize.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2016)

pnome said:


> "Moral behavior is survival behavior, above the individual level." - Robert A. Heinlein
> 
> What is "good" is that which we perceive as being beneficial to survival, for either ourselves, or others with whom we empathize.



Wanna play in the 'embryonic stem cell' sandbox?


----------



## RH Clark (Mar 21, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> It's not rational to think that what is 'unnecessary' is constant for a whole species. It's also not rational to think that what may benefit me in any given situation will also benefit you in those same situations. It could be said that, more times than not, what benefits me will not benefit you, and may, in fact, cause you harm. It is even less rational to think that nature, or whatever the driving mechanism for evolution is now, can differentiate between what is good for an individual against what is good for the species as a whole so that mutual benefit could be possible.
> 
> It is wholly irrational to say, Love your enemies and to do good to those that despitefully use you. I prefer irrationality.



I completely disagree. We see mutual benefit evolved into nature abundantly. A fruit tree provided food and thus propagates it's species. A flower is pollinated by nectar gathering insects. Many species depend on other species to survive. It's not only about the individual. A wolf may not have the herd's health in mind when feeding on the weak or sick, yet nature has arranged a mutual benefit.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 21, 2016)

RH Clark said:


> I completely disagree. We see mutual benefit evolved into nature abundantly. A fruit tree provided food and thus propagates it's species. A flower is pollinated by nectar gathering insects. Many species depend on other species to survive. It's not only about the individual. A wolf may not have the herd's health in mind when feeding on the weak or sick, yet nature has arranged a mutual benefit.



Life begats life.

You missed the point.


----------



## Israel (Mar 21, 2016)

RH Clark said:


> I completely disagree. We see mutual benefit evolved into nature abundantly. A fruit tree provided food and thus propagates it's species. A flower is pollinated by nectar gathering insects. Many species depend on other species to survive. It's not only about the individual. A wolf may not have the herd's health in mind when feeding on the weak or sick, yet nature has arranged a mutual benefit.



Yes...wolves are necessary.


----------

