13 ms·
If "god" is synonymous with the absolute truth of how the universe works then it can't address moral issues at all, since you can't prove an "ought" like "peopl
by IX-103 14d ago
If "god" is synonymous with the absolute truth of how the universe works then it can't address moral issues at all, since you can't prove an "ought" like "people shouldn't stab people" from an "is" like "stabbing hurts people and may kill them". You need to add extra axioms like "hurting people ought to be minimized".
The universe (and its intrinsic functions) holds no special value for people or trees or life in general. The best we can say is that it seems to have a slight preference for matter over antimatter for some reason.
All our moral codes and social norms we live by are purely human invention, derived from things that happen to work to produce a somewhat functioning society.
- HarHarVeryFunny 14d ago> All our moral codes and social norms we live by are purely human invention I'd say much of it is selected for by evolution. e.g. Most animals don't fight or kill more than they need to since this is not optimal - risk of personal injury and depleting a food resource (there are exceptions of course such as the fox in the henhouse), and this is so universal it seems it has to have a genetic basis.
- teleforce 14d ago>All our moral codes and social norms we live by are purely human invention, derived from things that happen to work to produce a somewhat functioning society. Religious people would disagree, and the evidences are all to see, hear and ponder from their sacred holy books. But the main questions are that which holy books are truly sacred, meaning that purely and utterly God words. Otherwise it's human innovation/exaggeration or something in between (i.e corrupted God words). Based on these holy books, religious people adhere and follow their prophets teachings and actions to the best of their ability since the prophets are their fellow human beings and not angels send from the heavens.