If God exists and revealed Himself to all humanity, because he is our creator, we would recognized him instantly. He has not done so, so, there is no proof that God exists.

My answer to your question is, MAN can not prove God exists, only God Himself can do that. — StaggeringBlow

I think that this perspective is flawed. In order that a human being could recognize God if He revealed Himself, one would have to already have an idea of what God is. Without that idea of what God is, it would be impossible to recognize God, no matter what He did to reveal Himself.

So prior to recognizing God, in His actual existence, we need to understand what God is. This is necessary in order that we could recognize God's actual existence when He reveals Himself to us. And, in order to understand what God is, someone must demonstrate, prove to you, what God is, because you cannot recognize Him based on what He has revealed,.as He cannot reveal Himself to you until you are capable of recognizing Him. So it is necessary that God be proven to you prior to God revealing Himself to you.

What is the problem at the Southern Border? — tim wood

It's a "problem" which has no solution. It has no solution because the exact nature of "the problem" cannot even be formulated in a universally acceptable way. So "the problem" itself is a phantom problem. People like us sit around discussing "the problem", and it makes the problem seem very real, something dreadful which needs to be addressed. But all there really is, is difference of opinion as to what "the problem" is, and this is a problem, but it's not "the problem", and that is a problem because instead of talking about the real problem we talk about "the problem"..

Ironically, all of that is irrelevant, and this is going exactly as I predicted. Okay, then by your definition, they don't have a measurement. So what? I don't care if you want to speak dumb. You'd have to make an additional argument that I should speak dumb. Importantly, this still doesn't mean that the car wouldn't be travelling at 30mph in an easterly direction, that the windshield wouldn't have an area of 1.5m2, and that an hour hadn't passed. And your point about a faulty speedometer obviously violates the thought experiment. You think I meant a faulty speedometer? No. Don't assume a faulty speedometer. Assume a working speedometer. — S

That the car is moving at 30mph is a judgement. Do you understand this? And a judgement requires a decision. Without any human beings, who makes that judgement?

Here, you have made that judgement, you have stipulated the speedometer reads 30mph. When I explained to you that the reading on the speedometer doesn't necessitate that the car is moving at 30mph, then you simply stipulated that the speedometer is working. Do you not see how this is begging the question? Your thought experiment asks whether such things as rocks, cars, and speedometers exist after there are no humans, yet to defend your position, you simply stipulate that they are there. How can we properly carry out your thought experiment with such manipulative interference?

That's why the whole thought experiment is nonsense. Unless you quit begging the question, the thought experiment is meaningless. If you quit begging the question, you get the result you do not want, that it's senseless to talk about the existence of things without any perceivers.

Okay, but you still have the gigantic problem of explaining innumerable things in nature of various sizes, for example in terms of height in metres, which have yet to be measured. It's like you don't even understand the purpose of measurement. The purpose of measurement is to find out what specifications something is. The problem here is your frequent misuse of a term such as "determine". No, not determine, find out. The specifications are predetermined, otherwise there would be nothing to find out, and that obviously wouldn't make any sense. They're objective. It's already of a particular size, say, a specific height in metres. We only measure it to find out the specifics. — S

The "specifics", what we "find out" about things, is the properties which we attribute to things. This is what we assign to the thing in measurement. it has such and such size, speed, etc.. Since the properties, or attributes, are what we assign to the thing, give to the thing in our descriptions, it makes no sense at all to say that the thing has those properties without being given to them by us.

I already stated the accepted definitions of "measurement", which clearly indicate that a thing must have been measured in order to have a measurement, but you simply ignore this, going off in your own fantasy land, where size is somehow something which exists in the object, and when we measure the object, its size magically jumps from the object to exist as something in our minds.

The rest of your post completely misses the point yet again, because you fail to realise that you're begging the question by assuming premises I don't accept, and then drawing conclusions from these premises. . — S

My premises are accepted definitions. Your mode of argument has been to dismiss my definition of :"measurement", which states that a thing must be measured to have a measurement, and instead of offering an alternative definition, you just go off talking nonsense, as if a thing does have a measurement without being measured. The fact that you can say "a thing has a measurement without having been measured", in no way means that this is true.

It has zero effect on my argument. If you want to validly argue against me, then you cannot beg the question. If you want to be unreasonable, then please continue doing what you're doing. — S

I agree, my practise of adhering to accepted definitions has zero effect on your argument. Your argument is all nonsense, and you continue to talk nonsense, refusing to acknowledge that you are.

This is genuinely very funny. But what's interesting is that you don't mean it to be. Do you know that there actually exist driverless cars now? Imagine if a driverless car was set on a course to travel from Manchester to Exeter, and then we all died before it reached its destination. It wouldn't continue to travel in miles per hour? It wouldn't be going, say, 30 miles per hour in an easterly direction? Even if the speedometer displayed "30mph", and even if the needle on the compass was pointing towards "E"? . — S

I don't see how this is relevant. A number printed by a machine is not a measurement. A number needs to be interpreted according to standards before it's a measurement. That's why speedometers need to be properly calibrated. The speedometer reading might be frozen at 30 mph for all eternity, it's really irrelevant to the question of whether an hour is actually being measured.

What about the windshield? Would it not be 1.5m2, even though it was made to that specification? What about the clock? When enough time has passed that the time displayed changes from "18:00" to "19:00", would an hour not have passed? — S

The windshield was measured, and therefore has a measurement. But what I am asserting is nonsense is the supposed hour of time which passes with no one to measure that hour. The clock doesn't measure the hour, for the same reason I explained with the speedometer above. The clock will show some numbers, but those numbers are meaningless without interpretation.

For your "thought experiment' to make sense, someone needs to be able to determine the point of time which marks an hour, and see if there's a rock at that point in time. Otherwise there is nothing to distinguish one point in time from another, or one period of time from all the rest of time.. And with no one to make such distinctions there is no sense in talking about the existence of rocks. There is simply no temporal perspective.

The problem with your scenario is that you are projecting to a future time. This is like saying "noon tomorrow". But any point in time only exists in so far as a human being indicates that point. So if all human beings die tonight, there will be no "noon" tomorrow because there will be no one around to apprehend a particular point in the passing time, as "noon". If you represent "noon tomorrow" as a particular relationship between the earth and sun, and assume that the relationship between these rocks will occur without human existence, then you are just begging the question, and this leaves your scenario as pointless.

So your scenario is meaningless nonsense any way you look at it. Either you are completely wrong by way of contradiction, as I argue, or else you are making some unjustified assumptions which amount to nothing more than begging the question.

Ah, just as I suspected. You don't understand why what you're doing is fallacious. Maybe one day you'll learn why, but I'm done trying. — S

Actually, you don't seem to have tried very hard, just asserting over and over, that the burden is on me to prove that what you are saying is nonsense. But in reality the burden is on you to demonstrate how your so called thought experiment makes any sense at all. and that you are not just asking us to imagine an impossible scenario. I've shown you why it is an impossible scenario and you seem to have no rebuttal for that, only more nonsense, claiming that something could have a measurement without being measured.

My failure to understand why what I am doing is fallacious is a product of your inability to explain why what I am doing is fallacious. And your inability to explain why what I am doing is fallacious is due to the fact that it is not fallacious. Oh well, so be it.

An hour is "the duration of 9,192,631,770 [x 3,600] periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (at a temperature of 0 K). — Michael

S's question asks whether there would be a rock an hour after all the people died. My objection was that "an hour" is a measurement which can only be carried out by a human being. So the assumption of "an hour after all the people died", is nonsensical, or even contradictory because "an hour" only exists as a product of measurement.

Assuming your definition of "an hour", then unless there is someone to count those periods of radiation, and determine whether there is that designated rock at this precise moment, the question is completely nonsensical. The question assumes that a comparison can be made between those periods of radiation, and the existence of a rock, without anyone to do the comparison. S does not recognize that question as meaningless nonsense.

This is hilarious, because you probably don't realise that, when analysed, that will be found to say either nothing of any relevance, like a tautology which completely misses the point, or something obviously mistaken. And of course, you don't provide any argument at all in support of this, as expected. Well, except the above "argument", of course, which is clearly just a bare assertion. — S

Sorry to disappoint you, but a tautology provides the most reliable premise. That's why it's as you've admitted, a "knock down argument".

Knock down argument! You win. — S

The burden is on you here, not me. You need to demonstrate a contradiction if that's what you're suggesting - and no, not by begging the question or making a number of bare assertions, as obviously that's fallacious. Given that it's you, however, this is probably asking the impossible. — S

Measurement is "1. the act or an instance measuring. 2, an amount determined by measuring."

I've demonstrated the contradiction. You claim that a thing could have a measurement without an act of measuring. This is what you said: "If a stick happens to be a metre in length, then it happens to be a metre in length, and that's that." To say that the stick has a measurement without being measured, clearly contradicts accepted definitions of "measurement". Now the burden is obviously on you, to provide a new, and acceptable definition of "measurement" which supports your position. You can't just assume that there is such a definition, and base your argument on that, using words in this nonsensical way. To say that a stick has a measurement without being measured is just a meaningless, nonsensical use of words. That's all.

Metaphysician Undercover, do you ever wonder whether you're hopelessly out of your depth here on this forum? — S

I don't wonder about that, I recognize it as a fact every day. This stuff is so incredibly shallow.

But what I’m alluding to in bringing up New Guinea or Australia or the Pacific is that when we use the word art to address objects that have been made, artefacts, we’re referring to objects that carry a particular weight or meaning or even power. By wearing a mask a New Guinea elder becomes a spirit teacher, the Australian Corroboree interacts with the Dreamtime. We lump these things together as art because they have form, colour, repitition, pattern, etc. (The history of modern art could be said to be that of appropriation). These are the originators of art, like the drawings in the caves of Lascaux in France.

These art forms have a real purpose and might be regarded as an integral part of that community or culture. They certainly reinforce cultural ideas and history, as well as ideas on moralism. It’s true that in terms of the community or culture they are subjective. But my suggestion is that the moral aspects are universal, appearing again in far off places. — Brett

I don't see how this example is substantially different. Exactly what the wearing of the mask means is subjective, even within that particular culture. On one occasion it might mean something different than another occasion. And, it might mean something different to one person than it does to another, even on the same occasion of use. In this way its use, and meaning, is similar to that of a word. You have assigned to it a particular meaning, the "elder becomes a spirit teacher", which though it is particular is very general in nature, and this interpretation is conditioned by your culture. Being very general, and therefore vague, it would be hard to say that your interpretation is wrong, it's just not very informative.

You declare that the artifact carried a particular weight, or special power, but there were probably many such objects, each with its own special power. Today, the electrical engineer, or physicist, will use the word "electron" , and just knowing the significance of that word, and the proper way to use that word, gives this class of people magnificent powers over a part of the natural world which to the rest of us is essentially unknown. I don't see this as fundamentally different from the person who puts on the mask. The mask, like the word, is a symbol, and it is not the symbol itself which holds the power, it is the knowledge of the natural world, which comes along with knowing how to use that symbol, that holds the power. So you look at the mask as if it carries special power, but really the mask just signifies a special knowledge which the person using the mask has. And the rest of the population has great respect for that person because of this knowledge, and also for the symbol itself, because of the power which the knowledge represented by that symbol, brings to the person.

These art forms have a real purpose and might be regarded as an integral part of that community or culture. They certainly reinforce cultural ideas and history, as well as ideas on moralism. It’s true that in terms of the community or culture they are subjective. But my suggestion is that the moral aspects are universal, appearing again in far off places. — Brett

I think, that to the extent that the knowledge symbolized by the artifact is real knowledge, i.e. it tells the knower something real and useful in relation to the world, then that particular type of artifact, or aspect of the artifact, will be found in many different cultures, as the knowledge spreads. Different cultures did interact even thousands of years ago. So certain very useful developments, such as the wheel, the circle, and consequently angles and geometry, and also what you suggest moral principles, being very useful, would spread quickly. The moral principles, being the most abstract, would be more difficult to find physical evidence of.

Then would it be true to say that ‘every human act, to the extent that it is intentional and therefore aims at some ‘good’, is itself good,’ suggests that only those acts that are beneficial to the community would be added to the lexicon of ‘moral’? And that these acts are carried out by a moral being who already carried the idea of a moral act within him. — Brett

In some moral theory, (and I think this stems from Aristotle), there is a distinction made between the apparent good and the real good. The individual moral subject always apprehends and acts on, an apparent good. Whether the apparent good is consistent with the real good is another question. I've seen this mostly in religious material, like Aquinas, where 'real good" is backed up by God. But "real good" could also be backed up by what you propose, "beneficial to the community".

The point is that the apparent good, is not always consistent with the real good. So the intent involved in making this distinction, is not to remove acts which are inconsistent with the real good, from lexicon of "moral", but to remove terms like "bad" and "evil" from the lexicon of "moral', just like we would remove "ugly" from the lexicon of "art". Art, being a creative act always has elements of beauty. Now the person who acts on an apparent good which is inconsistent with the real good is not to be called "bad" or "evil", because that person is still acting for a "good". The person is just misguided, uneducated, untrained, or some such thing, with respect to the real good. And, the person who is mentally ill, who is not even capable of apprehending an apparent good, and is acting in a bad or evil way because of this illness, has one's acts thereby removed from the class of "moral acts" due to this illness. Likewise, something which is ugly, like destruction and corruption, we would not be classed as art, being contrary to creativity.

But was he exposed to cultures like those of South America, the Pacific, Australia or New Guinea, and if he was would he have perceived the hidden content of sculpture, song or dance, and if he perceived it would he understand? — Brett

I don't quite see the point to this line of questioning. I think that the "content" of art is very subjective, such that one interpretation might apprehend a completely different content from another. We can take a piece of art, analyze the form, and be quite in agreement concerning the formal aspects. But when we get to the content, and this is the meaning which we assume that the artist has given to the piece, there is bound to be much disagreement. That is because a person will often be inclined to assign meaning to the piece based on what it means to oneself. It is very difficult to put oneself into the position of the artist, to determine the true content, the meaning which the artist has put into the piece. And, there is a type of inversion which artists are prone to practise, and this is to leave the meaning as ambiguous. This allows that the true meaning, and therefore the content of the art, is not what the artist puts into the art, but what the people who appreciate the art take from it. And being what is intended by the artist, this act of giving such that one can take what one wills from it, then this is the true meaning or content, that various observers may take various different meanings from it.

So with respect to Plato, I'm sure he was exposed to various different cultures, especially around the Mediterranean, Persia and Asia. He clearly understood how the content of art was important, and also how the content was open to interpretation. Whether or not he could have correctly "perceived the hidden content", I don't think is even a question we can consider, due to the issues stated above. Interpretation of content is fundamentally subjective.

Well, the rust gets real bad after a while. I hate it when my seat goes through the floor and hits the pavement at 60 mph.

So would you say that anything can be derived from God's existence alone? — Terrapin Station

No, I don't thing anything can be derived from God's existence alone. What can be derived from one premise? "God exists", alone, without any defining statements, is just a statement of ambiguity.

Something doesn't have to be measured to be such that it conforms within a specific range within a standard of measurement. — S

Right, tell me another one. It's that attitude which makes quantum mechanics such a mystery to some. The fact is that an act of measurement is required in order that something has a measurement. To simply assume that your sticks have a measurement, as you do, does not actually give your sticks a measurement, so you have just made a false assumption, that's all. Nothing has actually measured your sticks so obviously they do not have a measurement. Clearly nothing has a measurement without having been measured

Like language, systems of measurement are based on rules. The rule is that an hour has passed if a certain period of time has passed. If that certain period of time has passed, then an hour has passed. From that, it does not follow that anyone needs to be standing around measuring the time. It doesn't even follow that anyone needs to exist! — S

Sure, carry on with your vicious circle. An hour is a certain period of time, and that certain period of time is an hour. Okee dokee bro.

Just on beauty in art, which I’m not talking about at all; Greek philosophy and as a consequence art was when beauty became a subject, I imagine Plato would not have considered anything other than Greek art actually art, nor would he have known very little about other far flung cultures and their ‘art’. So the distinction between ‘beauty’ and ‘good’ is really a Greek dilemma. For those far flung cultures art is not about beauty, but purpose and inspiration. — Brett

I think you're somewhat wrong about Plato here. He was quite exposed to foreign cultures, and that he noticed the differences between them is evident in his moral philosophy. For him, "beauty" was attributable to all things artificial. The fact that they are created is what makes them beautiful. So art, no matter what culture it comes from is beautiful.

However, the issue has not been removed from us today. When we look at "good", or "virtue", there is an opposite to it, "bad", or "vice". In morality therefore, we distinguish human acts by the opposing principles of good and bad. But it's not proper to hand such negativity to art.; to say that art, which is not your favourite art, is ugly or some such negative thing. By the very fact that it is art, it has beauty.

So in the case of "art" we have totally removed the negative things from the category. Art is creativity, and generation, while the negative of this, destruction and corruption, do not even get into the class of "art". But in "morality" we haven't progressed to that point of removing the negative, "immoral" from the category of "moral". We think that judging human acts according to the opposing principles of good and bad somehow gives that judgement objectivity. But this is false, it's an illusion. That's the illusion of sophistry which Plato tried to expose.

In reality, "good" and "bad", being used as opposing principles, only obtain objectivity in relation to some further principles. As Plato demonstrated, this may be the opposing principles of pleasure and pain. But he demonstrated that we cannot get to satisfactory moral principles through this method of opposition, as "good" by its very nature, cannot have such an opposition. So we need to look to art and creativity as the exemplar of "good" human activity. Then we see that every human act, to the extent that it is intentional and therefore aims at some "good", is itself good. The very nature of being an active human, is good. And in this way we can remove "bad", and "evil", right out of the category of "moral being", as all acts of the moral being are carried out for some good, and we can produce a more truly objective judgement of morality.

If I understand you correctly, you do not accept my claim that "an hour" is a measurement, just like one degree Celsius is a measurement, and a metre is a measurement. OK, then that explains our difference on this issue.

No it's not though! No one would, obviously. No one exists in the scenario. But that doesn't matter, because the question is beside the point to begin with. — S

That's not true, because your premise state distinctly "we all died an hour previously". So you imply that someone has measured an hour after everyone has died, and you posit this point in time. Clearly, there is no such point in time unless someone measures it and designates "this is the point in time one hour after everyone died". But everyone is dead and there is no one to measure that time, so there is no such point in time, and your question is nonsensical.

In short, you believe that time is subjective. — S

No I don't believe that time is subjective, I told you that already, time would continue to pass after all the people died. But the measurement of time is carried out by human beings, and therefore requires human existence. So it doesn't make any sense to talk about what may or may not exist an hour after all humans died, because "an hour" is a measurement, and there would be no such measurement without any human beings. Therefore there would be no such thing as "an hour" after all human beings died. An hour is a measurement. You seem to have difficulty comprehending this fact. But it's like talking about what temperature it will be when there are no human beings. That's nonsense, because "temperature" is a measurement, just like "an hour" is a measurement, and without human beings, there would be no measurements.

The only rule here is that whatever you wish to attribute to God must be derived from his existence only. — tim wood

The importance is not in what you derive from God, it is in what you understand when you recognize the need to assume God.

Historian's dispute whether the walls were truly defensive, to keep the barbarian's out, or whether their purpose was symbolic--to show Roman might and achievement. — Ciceronianus the White

The Great Trump Wall is completely symbolic, a monument to the most excellent Donald who Made America Great Again.

Ming vases are among the most exquisite work of arts. On average they fetch over $20,000 in auctions. Now, suppose that one such vase develops a small crack of say few mm. How would that affect its value? Well, it would not drop by merely 10% or 20% or even 50%. Its value is likely to be reduced by 90%. Why that so? — Jacob-B

The crack increases the chances of the vase breaking probably by at least 90%.

When you buy a new car, you should hit the hood with a hammer and put a noticeable dent in it, before you even drive it off the lot. This will relieve the new-car-driver of the horror of getting the perfect new car scratched or scuffed in a parking lot. Just dent the damned thing and get it over with. — Bitter Crank

That's right, every time I get a body job done on a vehicle, I'm so afraid and nervous about driving it, that I go and hit something right away (not intentionally but because my driving is affected by the anxiety) and this removes the anxiety which makes me drive badly. So I might just as well do it intentionally to get it over with.

You seem to be assuming something along the lines that time is how time is measured. I do not agree with that. And I think that it's true to say that hours would pass, even if no one measured the passing of time, and even if no one existed to measure the passing of time. Time is objective in that sense. — S

It's not a question of whether time would pass, it's a question of who would determine that an hour had past. So in your example, all people would die, and time would continue to pass. Who would say "now it's been an hour since the last person died, is there a rock"? You are assuming that there would be such a point in time, and that it makes sense to ask if there'd be a rock at that point in time. But there would be no such point in time, because a point in time is what human beings determine, so the question makes no sense.

Soon, the USA will be overrun with Canadians.

Your "argument" begins with a false premise that I have already rejected. I am asking you to support that premise, not to beg the question. Why is a human activity, such as designation presumably is, supposedly required at the time, in the scenario, by humans, in order for there to be a rock? Please don't go around in circles. I don't want a repeat of your reasoning following the assumption of your key premise, I want you to try to justify your key premise. — S

Consider a situation in which there are no human beings to distinguish one period of time, from another period of time. All time would exist together in an endless time period. Since a "rock", as we understand it, has a particular duration of time, there could be no rock existing for this endless time period, hence your question is meaningless. In order that there is a rock, it is necessary that someone individuates a time period in which there is a rock. Otherwise there is just an endless time period during which no particular things could have individual existence.

For example, you say that "an hour" is meaningless because there is no one there to interpret what that means. This is precisely the link that I'm questioning. Your argument is therefore fallacious. — S

OK, then explain to me how one time period, "an hour" for example is distinguished from the rest of time, without a human mind doing that distinguishing.

Oh the irony. Let me clarify: that was a thought experiment. You and I are both capable of thinking about the scenario of there being a rock, but no people, in spite of the false idealist premise which you adhere to. — S

I thought about it, and as I explained, it's contradictory, impossible nonsense. you just seem to have difficulty understanding this fact.

No it doesn't, but you're welcome to make that argument. — S

OK, I'll produce the argument. In order that "there is a rock" is true, it is required that a place in space and time be designated, where the rock is located. And that's what you say in the op, in your opening line "there is a rock".

So, then you remove that human capacity to designate a particular place in space and time, by saying all humans are gone. And so "an hour" is meaningless because there is no one to interpret "an hour", or to measure that hour. So your scenario is a meaningless impossibility, due to contradiction. You posit the capacity to determine an hour later, when there are no humans and "an hour" is meaningless.

Then we all die.

Then I draw logical consequences from reasonable premises and definitions, and you...?

Nothing "happens next". There are still rocks, and words still mean what they do. — S

No, your premise #1 assumes already, that "there is a rock", after the humans are gone, then proceeds to ask if there is a rock, so it's just begging the question. Of course there is a rock, the premise dictates it. But what I am trying to show you is that your premise is contradictory, so it's nonsense.

Your definition of 'carrying capacity' is according to 'species'. Are you saying that the hunter-gather is a different species than the agrian? Otherwise, as the same species the carrying capacity is the same.

The produce is grown. But how does that take us outside the solar budget?

It's relevant because your hypothetical scenario assumes the capacity to designate a particular time and a particular place when there are no human beings.

So, let's start from the beginning. All human beings die. What next?

Are you certain of that? What is a more efficient solar energy converter... a plowed field of a forest? — Bloginton Blakley

A more efficient use of solar energy does not imply going beyond the solar budget, it just implies a more efficient use of the solar budget.

The false surplus come from the fact that it requires huge amounts of energy to create and defend a field. The total amount of energy spent requires additional energy inputs beyond sunlight... like human labor... which is also ultimately fed by solar energy. Whether stored in the form of fossil fuels or created from field of hay for draft animals. So when people start planting fields there is a local surplus for a small community at the cost of eco-diversity. That same ground could only support a very few wanderers. This allows a society to gain more territory... and create more fields. At the cost of increased labor requirements to develop and sustain the fields. Increase population and the cycle continues... — Bloginton Blakley

Your arguments are nonsense. Human energy comes from consumed agricultural produce. Fossil fuels come from solar energy. These are not instances of going beyond the solar budget. That the energy is collected at one time, and used at another, does not mean that the budget is broken.

And this is important for you to note... at every step in this process the land occupied by civilization is supporting far larger populations than that same land could support in it's natural state. — Bloginton Blakley

What is your proposed "natural state" of the land, barren rock, prior to all life forms?

Which of course means that agriculture is overdrawing the solar energy budget of that land. — Bloginton Blakley

No, all it means is that human beings are better at providing for other human beings (more efficient), with what the sun gives us, as farmers, in comparison to as hunter-gatherers..

There is a rock, but no one is there to perceive it, because we all died an hour previously. Is there a rock? Yes or no? — S

This is an impossible scenario. Who determines the point in time of an hour past when we all died, if we all died? That's the problem with scenarios like this. You want to remove all human presence, yet still presupposed the means for designating a particular place at a particular time, and ask "what's there?". But who would do that designating?

The vast human population we have is because of agriculture. Before agriculture human populations were much, much smaller. And the entire ecosystem existed within the energy budget provided by the sun.

So, we adopted agriculture not to support huge populations but because of the false surplus that agriculture produce, seemed a good way to increase our chance of survival. In pursuing that false surplus huge amounts of human labor is required, and society becomes reliant on the false surplus. — Bloginton Blakley

Agriculture does not go beyond the energy budget of the sun, so the "false surplus" you refer to is completely fictitious. Sure we have artificially lighted greenhouses, but this is such a minuscule amount of overall agricultural practises, which in themselves fall far short of maximizing the energy budget of the sun, that the energy used in these greenhouses is insignificant.

The demands of agriculture created the large populations. — Bloginton Blakley

This is where you have things backward. It is not the demands of agriculture which created large populations, it is the supply of agriculture which created the large population. The human demands of agriculture are actually very small in the modern mechanized farms such as in North America. A farmer can crop thousands of acres, or herd thousands of livestock, with very few employees. Agriculture makes no demand on the population, it simply supplies for the needs of the population. If the supply is higher than the need there would be a surplus, but the modern trend is to convert crops to fuel, so if anything, there is a shortage not a surplus.

We you add to that the other demands that the agrarian lifestyle puts on the human character, you end up with things like greed... property... authority... wars... markets... climate change... — Bloginton Blakley

I don't know how you are using "agrarian" here, but the lifestyle of the farmer is one of hard work, to provide for others. It is not properly characterized by "greed" and such terms. You have created a completely fictitious scenario, which casts the members of the agricultural society as evil villains, and that's just wrong.

A bit off from the subject, but for an atheist it's quite easy. And in the process of "natural selection" you really don't need God, when you have a random process how species get their genes and then the process of those most adapted to the environment making more offspring. — ssu

But a random process is not a selection. When you toss a coin do you think that something selects whether heads or tails will appear?

First and foremost, Darwinism is part of science, not an ideology, and hence it's based on objective study. More of a need for God would be to answer moral questions, what is wrong or right, but atheists typically just refer to humanism in this case. — ssu

Science is an ideology, a methodological ideology, but that's irrelevant. Darwin had to select the words used in description of his theory, and the fact is that he used "selection". If you explain what Darwin called a "selection", as a random process, then clearly you are misinterpreting what Darwin intended. He meant, that nature selects from processes which would, without such selection, produce random results. So you cannot dismiss as non-essential to his theory, that act of selection, leaving the whole thing as random processes. "Selection" does not mean random.

As I said, it really depends on your definition where to put the line between natural and artificial and that is arbitrary. Artificial is meant as "man made rather than occuring naturally". My issue with that, is that anything man made is natural in my view. Perhaps it's easier to just do away with "artificial" and simply say man-made as something understood as a more specific process found in nature. — Benkei

But Darwinian evolutionary theory breaks down the division between human beings and other animals. So to divide between artificial and natural, along the lines of human vs. all else, is not justified or supported by any real principles. This means we need to either extend the class of "artificial" to include the activities of other living beings, or else dismiss it altogether leaving everything as "natural".

Isn't agriculture necessary to feed the seven billion people on earth? How do you propose a society not based on agriculture, when eating is one of the few essential activities?

As it turns out basing the vast majority of human life on the demands of agriculture has run into a rather dramatic dead end. — Bloginton Blakley

Do you see how this is backward? We make demands on agriculture, because it is necessary to support the vast numbers of human lives, not vise versa.

Rejecting God or any diety is easy. — ssu

Is it really so easy? The word "selection" implies choice, and choice requires an agent who is doing the choosing. In the case of "natural selection", if the agent who is doing the choosing is not God, then who is it, Mother Nature? It appears to me that as long as we maintain the concept of "natural selection", some sort of God or deity is implied as that which is doing the selecting.

Wouldn't it better serve the purpose of evolutionary theorists, to remove the word "selection" from the description of the natural processes which are related to death? We all die and there is no selection (by the grim reaper) involved. Then "selection" is left to describe the reproductive processes, like those described by StreetlightX, which are responsible for the continuity of existence. There really is no need for a concept of "natural selection".

I guess I’m trying to focus on two things:

a: that morality exists as an objective set of guides on our behaviour (I await the howls).

b: that art, primarily writing, explains it: Homer, Shakespeare, Doestoevsky. — Brett

I do not think it is correct to say that art explains morality. That's why Plato worked to build a separation between philosophy and art. Art may express different forms of morality, but philosophy explains morality. There is a metaphysical distinction between "beauty" and "good", although these two get tied up with each other as the inspiration for philosophy. If we seek what Is "good", we find that each particular good, is only objectified in relation to a further end. What makes it "good", is that it is useful for some further purpose. On the other hand, "beauty" (and this is what art gives us), is sought simply for the sake of itself. This places "beauty" as the thing with highest value (sought for the sake of itself), necessarily higher than ethical goods (which are sought for the sake of something else). Plato seems to have been perplexed by this, especially since pleasure gets placed in the category of "beauty", as sought for the sake of itself. Thinking that "good" ought to be higher than "beauty" he sought the philosophical principles to reverse that hierarchy.

What Plato didn't quite grasp, and what Aristotle brought out later in his Nichomachean Ethics, is the importance of "activity", in defining human nature. So when Aristotle looks for the highest good, what puts an end to the chain of "some further purpose", he posits "happiness", and happiness takes the place of "beauty". But happiness still seems to be missing something in relation to human existence because it is natural for human beings to be active. So he proceeds to look for a highest activity. And this is how "good" may supersedes "beauty" as the pinnacle in the hierarchy. By designating human activity as higher than passivity, "good" is now of a higher importance than "beauty" as the inspiration for activity. No longer is activity apprehended as necessarily the means to an end, but the activity, as good, becomes the end in itself.

So back to your quote above, what morality gives us is the inspiration to act well. Therefore a) is a misrepresentation of morality, as it describes more of a statement of ethics (rules for behaviour), whereas morality involves the inspiration to act properly. And your question seems to be whether or not art can give us that inspiration to act. Referring back to the distinction between "beauty" and "good", art seems to give us beauty, but it may not give us the inspiration to act, which is the good.

OK, so by your definition, natural is something that is performed by non reasonable agents, like non-living things, and we still have to decide what living things qualify as reasonable? — Hrvoje

No that's not the case at all, because non-reasoning creatures make selections as do reasoning beings. The non-reasoning ones just don't make rational choices. But non-living things don't make choices at all. So where I see the problem is in classing the living together with the non-living as "natural".

I think that in the case of "natural selection", "selection" is not a good choice of words. That is because there is nothing which makes a choice, nothing which decides the creatures "selected", and this is what is required for "selection", a choice. For example, when you flip a coin there is nothing which chooses the outcome, so whether it lands heads or tails it is not an act of selection. To say that something "selects" whether the coin ends up heads or tails would be a misuse of the word.

I'm not debating myself, and I'm not debating Darwin. — karl stone

Only a master debater could debate oneself.

In her book “Wickedness” Mary Midgley wrote that ‘It is one main function of cultures to accumulate insights on this matter (morality; our motivation, ambivalence, wasted efforts, damage) , to express them in clear ways as far as possible, and so to maintain a rich treasury of past thought and experience which will save us the trouble of continually starting again from scratch. — Brett

I think, that in morality the need to start again from scratch cannot be dismissed. This is because morality starts from the top, the ideal, and all the moral principles follow from the ideal. So as time passes, the knowledge which human beings have come to possess changes radically, so that the ideal must be approached all over again, and redefined in light of the new knowledge. This is a starting again from scratch, and I think it is also why Plato was so hard on the artists. The artists are prone to repeating over and over the old principles, from the past, which must be erased in order to put forward new ones.

In The Republic there is a double layer of representation. At the top there is the Divine Idea, the Ideal, of "righteous person", and you might call this God's idea. An individual human being may attempt to replicate this Ideal of "righteous person" with one's own idea of "righteous person". This is the first layer of representation. Then the individual will act according to one's own idea, in an attempt to bring about the reality of actually being a righteous person. That is the second layer of representation.

If we are as natural as the rest of nature, how come the selection that we do is not natural, so that it deserves special attribute, ie "artificial"? Maybe that is the only thing here that is artificial, our notion of artificiality? — Hrvoje

I think there is a division to be made between living things and non-living things. And I don't
see how a non-living thing could make a choice or a selection. Yet we refer to non-living things as being natural. So "natural selection" doesn't appear to refer to anything reasonable to me because it still requires a division between living natural things, and non-living natural things, the former being capable of selecting.

I can give you one example (that I think it's an example, you may not agree with me), for which I think it is just a bad style. The syntagm "Natural Selection" in Darwin's theory is redundant in a sense that the word "Natural" could/should be omitted, as there is no alternative to nature when we talk about reality, ie not imaginary processes but real processes. — Hrvoje

The problem here, is that nature really does not "select". Selection is a matter of choice, and some sort of will is required to choose. So the phrase "natural selection" creates the illusion that nature has the capacity to choose. This breaks down the classical division between natural and artificial.

So "Natural Selection" is not redundant at all. It's a phrase purposely chosen to break down that division between natural and artificial, thereby bringing human beings, along with all of the "artificial" things which they create, into the realm of "nature". Whether or not this is a good, and true, representation is a matter of opinion. I think it's false, as represented in my first sentence, nature really does not select, individual living beings make choices, not nature.

Oh I agree with this completely. The business of life is to build freedom. Gravity says stay down, but life refuses. And I think all along in the thread I have emphasised identification as an activity more than something static. - Or perhaps I took it for granted? — unenlightened

We seem to actually agree on a lot, we just each have a different way of expressing what we believe. But you look at activity as the identifying feature, I look to the reason for the activity (intent) as the identifying feature. That's why when you asked me about John Chau I had to try to learn what motivated him, to properly answer the question. I didn't think I'd be capable of properly judging him simply on the basis of the action reported. But this piqued my interest to do a little more research into the history of the area. The internet is so good for that, no need to go to the library anymore (that's freedom). But I worry it might only be temporary, getting overrun by special interests, so that whatever information you can get for free, will become unreliable.

It isn't really off topic, because the nature of freedom, and how it is that some form of freedom can get some sort of status as a fundamental right is important both to the creation and maintenance of diversity, and to the concept of oppression.

So I look at "freedom" as a fundamental element in living organisms, which is responsible for the existence of diversity within these living creatures, not as something which the organism has to strive to obtain, as if freedom can only arise from those efforts. And from my perspective freedom is closely tied to the concept of life itself. In Aristotle's principal biological work, called "On the Soul", he describes the various potencies of living beings. Each capacity that a living being has, from the most basic, self-subsistence, through self-movement, sensation, and intellection, is itself the potential for action. Every such capacity, or potential for action, is a contingency, and according to the nature of possibility, it need not be actualized in any particular way. Therefore I find the freedom to choose (and this is not a rational choice, but closer to a random choice as we'd find with trial and error) to be a basic principle of life itself. And the fundamental freedom to choose is the cause of diversity in life forms.

This is why identity, when it is a living being which is being identified, is so difficult. The power of choice gives that being the capacity to change its identity. That is assuming that we base "identity" in some sort continuity of existence. Aspects of a thing which do not change for a period of time provide us with the identity of that thing. In the case of living beings, what we find is that what does not change, is the capacity for change (choice), and this confuses the hell out of us. So the living being is a true chameleon, always showing you a different identity, and to determine its true identity requires exposing the capacity to change its identity.

The history of the Andaman islands is sordid. The evil here is the evil of the authorities. The British established a penal colony, mainly for those Indians opposed to British colonization. The convicicts were enslaved to provide for the opulence of the authorities. The natives were treated worse. It's no wonder that the natives hate foreigners. The convicts were known to escape, and would therefore associate with the natives, whether the natives killed them or not would depend on the particularities of the situation. What do you think the ancestry of a modern day Sentinelese really is?

I don't think so, you can add more money if needed.