[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I was saying God has to exist for morals to be real, not that people have to believe he is real. Unbelief doesn’t render god non-existent.
Nor does belief in a god render that god existent.
By the way, even if you accept that morals have to be universal in order to be “real”:
Why don’t you acknowledge the possibility that morals are part of the set of laws governing the universe? Just as with other laws like gravity, the presence of these laws doesn’t invoke or require a supernatural being.
[/quote]
Not that I am going to get into this with you guys, but I was reading C.S. Lewis the other day.
He addresses the very point you just make
Unlike the Natural laws (which you suggest are the same as a moral law) we are unable to choose to obey those governing laws. Instead we are forced to obey them. IE we can’t say I am not going to obey the law of gravity today.
With morals on the other hand we have a choice to follow them or to disregard them. Which in that sense renders them totally different from Natural Universal laws.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I was saying God has to exist for morals to be real, not that people have to believe he is real. Unbelief doesn’t render god non-existent.
Nor does belief in a god render that god existent.
By the way, even if you accept that morals have to be universal in order to be “real”:
Why don’t you acknowledge the possibility that morals are part of the set of laws governing the universe? Just as with other laws like gravity, the presence of these laws doesn’t invoke or require a supernatural being.
Not that I am going to get into this with you guys, but I was reading C.S. Lewis the other day.
He addresses the very point you just make
Unlike the Natural laws (which you suggest are the same as a moral law) we are unable to choose to obey those governing laws. Instead we are forced to obey them. IE we can’t say I am not going to obey the law of gravity today.
With morals on the other hand we have a choice to follow them or to disregard them. Which in that sense renders them totally different from Natural Universal laws.
[/quote]
I was going to say. Looking at human history, past and present, where is this universal moral law that we can’t overcome without having to apply science to overcome it. Like, gravity.
After all, it seems that murder, theft, lying, tyranny, and war, are just as natural to human beings as caring for one’s grandma.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
That is a good point. From a survival of the fittest perspective, morals related to helping others, when you don’t have to, have no advantage. As such, the idea of helping others over one’s self could not have originated from a natural selection process. So morals had to come from somewhere else. [/quote]
From a survival of the fittest perspective, morals need to contribute to the survival of the species, not necessarily to the survival of the individual.
[quote]pookie wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You are now classifying whose opinions are worthy of inclusion. What is your bases for judging the worth of an opinion?
There is no judgment of opinion involved.
You’re picking extreme outliers as being representative of “the average human”. Do you believe that not valuing one’s life is the default condition for the average human being?
If you could pool all 6.5 billion humans and ask them “is preserving your life important to you (yes/no)” and kept only the most common answer, what do you think it would be?
[/quote]
So you to define morality by popular opinion?
What if I don’t agree with the morality that is popular?
[quote]orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
Morals obviously exist, because people can still have morals even without believing in god(s).
I was saying God has to exist for morals to be real, not that people have to believe he is real. Unbelief doesn’t render god non-existent.
That is a good point. From a survival of the fittest perspective, morals related to helping others, when you don’t have to, have no advantage. As such, the idea of helping others over one’s self could not have originated from a natural selection process. So morals had to come from somewhere else.
And yet vampire bats have learned to share.
So, either they are deeply religious creatures, or, evolution can develop reciprocal altruism, i.e. partnerships, if not friendships.
Once again, belief is not necessary for god to exist.
Well them his claim is simply not falsifiable, i.e. beyond the realm of science or just plain wrong as long as we want to stay within the realm of science.
I guess philosophers have developed objective moral truths. Is there a list presented in intro phil classes nowadays? Or, being completely objective, are they taught through one of the hard sciences?
[quote]Scrotus wrote:
pat wrote:
Science is limited in scope. It can only discover that which already exists.It creates or destroys nothing. It can materialize nothing.
Many have taken it, that because science has debunked somethings that used to be attributed to God, that God therefore does not exist. That is a flying leap deduction, they can only prove that ‘X’ was not derived directly from God, but in no way does that dispell the notion of the existence of God. I dont think they can prove that x isnt derived directly from god, just that X is something caused by something else, regardless of whether god exists or not or had any hand in creating it or not. This should help clear things up.
I find therefore that many scientists are weak minded people. They will take an extremely small amount of information and make giant absolute conclusions out of them, often the next generation finds the errors in their way of thinking.
Science is useful, but it is not the end all be all of information gathering, it is only a tool.
[/quote]
Wow this post is so old I forgot I ever posted it! Anyhow, what you are touching on is called cosmological argument for the existence of God. It is based on cause and effect relationships and basically states that cause and effect reduces to an infinite regress unless something outside the causal chain can have a causal effect. The only problem with the argument is that we don’t have the ability physically or mentally to trace back to the first ever created thing which would have had to come from an uncreated creator I.E. God.
This does not mean that unexplained events come from God, unexplained events are just unexplained events. However, everything comes from something. I don’t buy the whole everything came in to existence from nothing. Nothing begets nothing. For nothing to beget something then the nothing would actually be something. So it’s just not logical.
Now I think my evangelical brothers and sisters are trying to shove a square peg in a round hole with this whole intelligent design malarkey. Besides, I think evolution is pretty damn intelligent. I think the structures and events in the known universe are awe inspiring and intelligent. Making shit up is unnecessary.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Would a child be better off if the parents gave it everything it asked for?
I never suggested that your god should grant every prayer. What I did suggest was that unless your god does so at a rate greater than expected by chance alone, not only would it call into question the existence of said god, but there would be no value in worshipping him/her/it.[/quote]
Flip flopping again. now you are mocking people for worshiping even if god exists.
You don’t do what I ask, I’ve never seen you, maybe you don’t exist.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
Unlike the Natural laws (which you suggest are the same as a moral law) we are unable to choose to obey those governing laws. Instead we are forced to obey them. IE we can’t say I am not going to obey the law of gravity today.
With morals on the other hand we have a choice to follow them or to disregard them. Which in that sense renders them totally different from Natural Universal laws.
[/quote]
By universality of moral laws, I wasn’t suggesting that people are forced to follow them. I was suggesting that following them tends to produce predictable positive results, and failing to follow them tends to produce predictable negative results.
Not that I think universality is required for a moral to be “real”, I was just challenging the idea that universality requires the need to believe in a supernatural being.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
My point is that happiness, love, value, are are entirely relative without god.
Just because people may disagree in what they value doesn’t mean they don’t hold to their morals just as strongly as you hold to yours, nor does it mean those morals are any less real.
Let me ask you a question.
Which do you think is more meaningful, more valuable, and more real:
Following a moral code out of belief that it is right as justified by something beyond science.
Following a moral code due to what the popular majority say.
Following a moral code due to what I deem to be right and wrong regardless that the majority of people disagree with me
Following a moral code due to what a mystic natural force of right and wrong.
[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I was saying God has to exist for morals to be real, not that people have to believe he is real. Unbelief doesn’t render god non-existent.
Nor does belief in a god render that god existent.
By the way, even if you accept that morals have to be universal in order to be “real”:
Why don’t you acknowledge the possibility that morals are part of the set of laws governing the universe? Just as with other laws like gravity, the presence of these laws doesn’t invoke or require a supernatural being.
[/quote]
People do immoral/unnatural things all the time. Do stones sometimes fall up?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
Well they do unto others as they do unto themselves, yet I’d hardly consider suicide bombing a “moral” thing to do.
But you consider them a good example of the average human being?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
Well they do unto others as they do unto themselves, yet I’d hardly consider suicide bombing a “moral” thing to do.
But you consider them a good example of the average human being?
Others would. Depends on who you ask.
Who? Imaginary bad people in your head?
[/quote]
Well, those who celebrate them as martyrs…Maybe I dreamed I’ve seen such things on the news.
Edit: Actually, I’m reading your “good example” with a capital G-ood.
[quote]pat wrote:
This does not mean that unexplained events come from God, unexplained events are just unexplained events. However, everything comes from something. I don’t buy the whole everything came in to existence from nothing. [/quote]
You’re assuming the universe has a beginning. If you are willing to accept the infinite existence of a supernatural being, logic requires acknowledging that the universe (or a string of universes) may also be infinite.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Would a child be better off if the parents gave it everything it asked for?
I never suggested that your god should grant every prayer. What I did suggest was that unless your god does so at a rate greater than expected by chance alone, not only would it call into question the existence of said god, but there would be no value in worshipping him/her/it.
Flip flopping again. now you are mocking people for worshiping even if god exists.
You don’t do what I ask, I’ve never seen you, maybe you don’t exist.[/quote]
What are you talking about? My criticisms have always applied to any brand of god, not just your Christian variety. There is no flip flopping, the logic applies to equally to any supernatural claim.
Now how about addressing the actual point?
Are you claiming that your god answers prayers at a rate greater than expected by chance alone or not?
