Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:46 am**

Anything is possible. The subject at hand is extremely unlikely though. I have yet to see a flaw in it.

Posted: **Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:12 am**

a hhhhhh

Posted: **Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:14 am**

i got it from research and common sense. morality is not personal. if it was, the entire human population wouldn't have the same basic morals, and furthermore, these morals wouldn't have withstood thousands of years of culture changes.

the law is written to backup and insure the protection of morals everyone knows to be true--the morals were definately there first.

finally, the only digressions that have taken place have been at your request. the question was answered a long time ago but you keep pressing and i don't think you've been listening.

Posted: **Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:27 pm**

Alright then - let's digress.

colors wrote:morality is not personal. if it was, the entire human population wouldn't have the same basic morals, and furthermore, these morals wouldn't have withstood thousands of years of culture changes.

If by morality, we mean a system of ideas which define right and wrong, then of course it is personal. Is your morality the same as the thief's or the murderer's? Of course not. Everyone has their own ideas of right and wrong. Yes, there are a lot of clear-cut issues on which most individuals agree (eg. murder, rape, stealing...). And, as you say, that is because most human beings are naturally pre-disposed to certain ethical values.
Morality only becomes impersonal when an external organisation imposes its own morality on a society (eg religion, government.) For the large part, this morality coincides with the consensus of the society. But what happens when this morality becomes outdated or contested? - Take Christianity and its criticism of homosexuality for example: Is it really fair that such an outdated view of human relationships is maintained in modern society?
I would also like to make the distinction between moral right and wrong (personal) and legal right and wrong (impersonal, and imposed by a religious/governing body).

I suppose it comes down to a matter of choice: would you rather:
a) construct your own morality based on your own ethical codes?
OR
b) have your morality dictated to you by religion?

James

Posted: **Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:50 pm**

James wrote:Take Christianity and its criticism of homosexuality for example: Is it really fair that such an outdated view of human relationships is maintained in modern society?

By your standards it is not wrong, but your standards are by no means absolute. The biggest mistake atheists make when criticizing God is by judging Him by their own moral code, assuming theirs is right.

Posted: **Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:44 pm**

James wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:But if right and wrong is simply whatever is dictated by law, then rape and murder (that is, brutal or unprovoked killing of innocent people) can actually be declared alright.
No, you misunderstood me.

Well you've gone back on what you said, which I suppose is what happens when a person wings it. You were quite clear: "You are assuming that right and wrong are real properties of nature, and that God invented them. Right and wrong are defined by whoever writes the law. Right and wrong are needed to provide society with a clear view of the law."

James wrote:Right and wrong are dictated by an individual's morals. Morality is personal, everyone has different opinions about what is right and wrong. The law is a general consensus of the morals that should be enforced as law.

So how is this consistent with your original view that right and wrong "are needed to provide society with a clear view of law." It seems that you are now saying that society has that clear view of law, which then becomes enforced as law.

James wrote:Morals dictate the law. So if the general consensus of society was that murder was in fact okay, then perhaps murder would no longer be illegal.

And so you'd have to admit that murder wasn't really wrong? You may think it is wrong, but so what? That's just your preference, and according to your view, right and wrong are just like taste. I may like a red iceblock over a green one, and you may like green over red, but that don't mean liking green is wrong. It just means you like it, while I may not. If morals are like this, then right and wrong don't really exist. It's just a matter of preference. I believe the Atheist Friedrich Nietzsche was correct that without God, nothing has meaning—including right and wrong. The atheist philosopher Kai Nielson tried to defend the meaning of morality without God, but in the end admitted in his article "Why Should I Be Moral?":
<blockquote>We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth of ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I have painted for you is no a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me... Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.</blockquote>

James wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:So when many Jews died in the holocaust by the hand of Nazi Germany, they weren't really murdered? Additionally, there was nothing wrong with this?
Of course they were murdered. For the average person, morally speaking, murder is naturally an abhorrent crime. I think murder is wrong and you think murder is wrong. But what of the murderer? The murderer must have thought murder was right for some period of time to justify the act.

I think you may be confused here. If you steal something, does that mean you think stealing is right? I believe you are confusing action for belief, and the two are clearly different. The murderer can know that murdering is wrong, yet still choose to ignore his conscience and do it.

Justice is based upon our knowing certain actions are wrong—our acknowledgement that something is wrong, yet going ahead and committing a wrong action anyway. If a murderer did not know murdering was really wrong, then it seems an injustice for him to be punished for something he didn't know to be wrong. Shouldn't someone just tell him that murder is wrong? If my flatmate isn't aware of a bill to be paid, do I have any right to get mad at them for not paying on time, let alone punish them?

James wrote:In the case of the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany (I might add that I am hesitant to talk about such a sensitive subject), horrific as it was, many Nazis were convinced that they were right in what they were doing. Their sense of right and wrong was redefined by fallacious propaganda and a tyrannous leader. What they were doing (which was murder) was wrong to you and me, but to them it was right. Morality is personal.

See this is just it—morality has no meaning. You may use the words "right" and "wrong" but they are empty and hollow. Additionally, I can't understand how there was justice in the U.S. punishing Nazi's for war crimes after the war. Unless the Nazi's are held accountable to a higher moral law that they are aware of, it is not possible for one nation to logically justify judging another nation's actions as wrong. To do so, they have to appeal to a higher law that binds everyone. Christianity provides such a foundation as that higher moral law is embedded in God who stands above all. In this way, Christianity provides a strong foundations for our convictions that some things, such as murder and rape, really are wrong regardless of what anyone believes.

James wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Additionally, the argument you seem to be proposing appears to be based on faulty reasoning. Just because society may have been caused to believe in a higher power (i.e., by those wanting control), such does not mean that a higher power does not exist. Infact it is probably more the case that because many already believed in a higher power, that such beliefs could have (and can be) used by someone in power as a tool for own selfish agenda.
I agree, it does not mean that a higher power does not exist, but it puts a very large question mark over what is actually the word of the Lord and what is the word of someone in power with "their own selfish agenda".

How does it put a question mark over what has been written (i.e., "the word of the Lord")? It would be a great task for an authority to rewrite all the many manuscripts that would have been passed out, and change the memories of all those who memorised Scripture, in order to change such to meet their purpose.

Additionally, if you actually read the Bible (as I got at earlier), you should see the unsoundness of your reasoning, as it is much more than a book on right and wrong conduct. And if you look at the beginning of Christianity, you will see that it was far from being embraced by Roman authorities. Not until Christianity became more thoroughly entrenched did it become accepted into the Empire. Thus, it wasn't the authorities that birthed Christianity in order to control, rather it was Christianity that was already around, and then perhaps became used as a tool for control.

However, was it an effective form of control? Well, it could be argued that it is effective on the reasons that many saw that such belief contained a lot of truth. As the saying goes, a lie is best concealed between two truths. Thus, if Christianity contains a lot of truth, it can therefore be used to better conceal one's own selfish agenda, but this does not take away from its truth.

Kurieuo.

Posted: **Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:46 pm**

again, no, morality is not personal. those people who write their own moral codes are anomalies, misfits, and abnormal. they are locked-up and ostracized. so, no, i do not have the same morality as a thief or a rapist because i am not ANTISOCIAL.

moral codes which become outdated or strongly contested are usually thrown-out and discarded. but that only strengthens my argument. those morals which are universal and which have withstood societal changes can be logically deduced to be part of a hard-wired moral code present at birth/before logical thought.

as a result, we can assume that homosexuality is morally wrong under a universal/hard-wired moral code. otherwise, because it doesn't make much sense to most of us, it would have been discarded a long time ago. other laws/"morals" which have been washed away are: circumcision, animal sacrifice, and washing your arms to the elbows. these were all laws at one time and mentioned in the old testament...but then came Christ with a reaffirment of our basic moral coding and with ideas and laws backed by morals present since the beginning of humankind and still present today.

finally, yes, you are right...we can write our own morals against society and our hard-wiring, but humankind has ALWAYS had free-will...no one ever disputed that.

Posted: **Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:22 am**

Kurieuo wrote:
James wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:But if right and wrong is simply whatever is dictated by law, then rape and murder (that is, brutal or unprovoked killing of innocent people) can actually be declared alright.
No, you misunderstood me.
Well you've gone back on what you said, which I suppose is what happens when a person wings it. You were quite clear: "You are assuming that right and wrong are real properties of nature, and that God invented them. Right and wrong are defined by whoever writes the law. Right and wrong are needed to provide society with a clear view of the law."

Initially, I did not think that we were going to go into this much depth on the subject, so I did not make this distinction straight away. For this I am sorry. But if you had read my previous post, you will know that I said this:

James wrote:I would also like to make the distinction between moral right and wrong (personal) and legal right and wrong (impersonal, and imposed by a religious/governing body).

So in the latter sense, yes the law/religion does define right and wrong.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:20 pm**

I also have the strange notion that Biblical law was an early attempt at controlling a mob. Look how quickly it goes from the beginning of all time to the present day (Biblical present day) and then delves directly into sin...it seems apparent that there was something crazy going on--something that was in need of immediate control. Otherwise, why would a process that took billions of years (Big Bang to the life of man, if you believe the Big Bang was the whole "Let There Be Light!" thing) be written in just a few paragraphs? Obviously, the main point of the authors wasn't to describe the way the universe began and how life arose on the planet, but was instead to implement a standard of conduct for people to follow. How easy would it be for me, today, to climb on a mountain top for six weeks in order to hear the word of God, only to climb back down the mountain with something I wrote based on my own philosophical standards of good and evil? It wouldn't work today because different standards of thinking have also been taught--the standards of the scientific method and the power of skepticism. Those standards didn't apply to many people in the days of the Bible, as the scientific method is still relatively new.

Please, everyone, refrain from the whole "two agnostics have teamed up" conspiracy theory. I just think that similar lines of reasoning give similar results, and it seems to me that James probably has a background in psychology and/ or sociology and/ or criminology. Kind of amazing, isn't it? So many fight against evolution/ Big Bang/ naturalism/ abiogenesis when the topics that turned me agnostic were sociology and psychology! Perhaps you are fighting the wrong sciences!

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:38 pm**

Sorry Mastermind, I hadn't actually read your initial reply. I think we posted our comments at about the same time, so I missed yours. As I interpret it, the gist of what you're saying is that the existence of God can be proved conclusively through science. I've been having this discussion with Kurieuo, and we have got nowhere. I would be happy to discuss it with you, but on the relevant discussion board.

That will get us nowhere. I have no way of sharing my past experiences with you, and as such, we will not come to an agreement(you will not believe I had those experiences, and I will not believe you because I had them)

You say that you believe in Good and Evil. I would hope that you were able to see the "evil" in robbing an art gallery without the need for religion or God to tell you so. But if not, then I suppose it just goes to show how effective Christianity is at law enforcement.

Since I believe God decreed Good and Evil, my lack of faith will push these notions aside. You are right, Christianity is good for law enforcement, but that was not the reason why it was introduced. Its own history should prove that much.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:39 pm**

skoobieschnax wrote:I also have the strange notion that Biblical law was an early attempt at controlling a mob. Look how quickly it goes from the beginning of all time to the present day (Biblical present day) and then delves directly into sin...it seems apparent that there was something crazy going on--something that was in need of immediate control. Otherwise, why would a process that took billions of years (Big Bang to the life of man, if you believe the Big Bang was the whole "Let There Be Light!" thing) be written in just a few paragraphs? Obviously, the main point of the authors wasn't to describe the way the universe began and how life arose on the planet, but was instead to implement a standard of conduct for people to follow. How easy would it be for me, today, to climb on a mountain top for six weeks in order to hear the word of God, only to climb back down the mountain with something I wrote based on my own philosophical standards of good and evil? It wouldn't work today because different standards of thinking have also been taught--the standards of the scientific method and the power of skepticism. Those standards didn't apply to many people in the days of the Bible, as the scientific method is still relatively new.

Please, everyone, refrain from the whole "two agnostics have teamed up" conspiracy theory. I just think that similar lines of reasoning give similar results, and it seems to me that James probably has a background in psychology and/ or sociology and/ or criminology. Kind of amazing, isn't it? So many fight against evolution/ Big Bang/ naturalism/ abiogenesis when the topics that turned me agnostic were sociology and psychology! Perhaps you are fighting the wrong sciences!

If a modern day prophet can split a sea in two, prove it, and then show us some laws, it would give him quite a bit of credibility, don't you think?

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:02 pm**

skoobieschnax wrote:I also have the strange notion that Biblical law was an early attempt at controlling a mob. Look how quickly it goes from the beginning of all time to the present day (Biblical present day) and then delves directly into sin...it seems apparent that there was something crazy going on--something that was in need of immediate control.

Hey, I just got a word from God skoob. He told me how some things you do aren't right, and that I'm to write a book to show you the correct way. I can send it to you if you want?

Seriously... do you think people would really be so quick to change their lifestyle at a whim. Especially if, as you say, there must have been something crazy going on (i.e., total depravity??) Perhaps they should trial the theories of Atheists/Agnostics on those in prison.

Kurieuo.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:40 pm**

God created man for the purpose of loving, following, and obeying him. Now why would God tell us about a whole bunch of useless scientific mumbo jumbo of which he created and in revelations we are told God will recreate these laws. I'm sorry but God sticks to whats important and doesn't spend to much time on that which leads us nowhere.

Posted: **Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:22 am**

Another reason for God's laws - Man's benefit - All of them.

Posted: **Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:32 pm**

Boy, I hope I'm wrong here, but it seems my input is not welcome in this forum. I posted to this thread and now it has been removed. Even Kurieuo commented in another thread that I made a comment in THIS thread.

Kurieuo said:

You just went on about how morals are relative in one thread, but now, do you go all inconsistent?

So where's my post? Is this an open discussion? If not, in the future you might tell people that their input in not welcome and alert hem when you delete their posts.

Your guidleines claim:
Therefore, those who are Christian or haven't made up their minds are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged.

I must say, I do not join merely to attack, and I believe that to make up one's mind in either direction is a mistake. I leave myself open to all possibilities and encourage others to do the same. DO YOU?! I have found most Christians excited by the opportunity to explore their Theology.

Hopefully this post passes the test and is not deleted.

Greg

Evidence for God from Science

Christianity = Very Effective Law Enforcement?