Evidence for God from Science

Butterfly wrote:Addressing the question of the title of this thread, “Morality without God?”, I find it quite easy to trace out the origins of morality without the need of a divine source.

Once consciousness arose in animals the next step was self-consciousness, the state of being aware of oneself...from the point that humans became aware they naturally connected the idea of right and wrong using themselves as the model for morality.

When one is aware of disliking something done to their own selves, one then projects that dislike onto others, hence the birth of the "Golden Rule" or "Morality". Self-consciousness is the state from which morality was born, that is what sets us apart from all the other animals...the ability to project our own feelings and desires onto another being and know that it is either right or wrong because of our own awareness.

Self-awareness also gave birth to the idea of purpose and beginnings. Naturally when one is aware of their own existence, the question emerges...where did I come from, and what is my purpose? Thus, the idea of a creator who formed us for a purpose naturally arose, since our origins are hidden from our understanding.

Sin, like morality is a concept, not an “objective fact”, which emerged out of the consciousness of man. Without the self-awareness of the human animal “sin”, like morality does not exist; it is not a law or principle upon which life is built. The concept of sin arose solely from the state of self-awareness of our own selves, and the idea that somehow the desires of our humanity are innately bad.


If morality exists as a “truth” in the universe in the same way as say the Pythagorean Theorem does then why has mans concept of what is moral continued to change with time, and consciousness level? Take for instance the biblical passage in Numbers 31, where Moses orders the Hebrew soldiers by command from God to kill all the male children and women who are not virgins, and then proceeds to give the remaining 32,000 virgins girls to the Hebrew soldiers to keep for themselves…by today’s moral standards killing women and children and taking people as slaves is totally unacceptable and immoral, yet the Hebrew’s in biblical times seemed to think God allowed such behavior.

Num.31:1-2 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. Num. 31:18-19 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

There are countless other examples in the Bible where acts that are considered immoral by today’s standards are commanded and condoned by its God. Morality appears to come solely from the emergence of self-awareness and the ability to reason, there is no need of a “Divine Source” as the author of morality.

Icthus wrote:
Um, did you happen to read the previous discussion before making this post? I don't want to sound rude, but the topic focuses mainly on the arguments from evil many atheists make about God's supposedly immoral behavior and how they often seem to assume either that God as portrayed in the Bible is evil (which requires that morality exists with which we can judge him) or that God contradicts himself by declaring something to be evil and then doing it himself. The topic has never been about how concepts of morality could arise in the human mind without God putting them there.

Icthus wrote:On a somewhat related note, the examples of extermination of other nations such as those you've just pointed out have already been mentioned, as has the rather simple answer that when God, for instance, ordered the destruction of the inhabitants of Palestine, he was not doing evil.

Icthus wrote:I don't mean to nitpick, but your question "If morality exists as a “truth” in the universe in the same way as say the Pythagorean Theorem does then why has mans concept of what is moral continued to change with time, and consciousness level?" doesn't make sense to me. If objective morality exists, then human understanding of it has no bearing on whether it exists or not. Humanity has understood physics in different ways through the years, but that doesn't mean that the laws of physics themselves are inconsistent or don't hold outside the human mind.

Butterfly wrote:Addressing the question of the title of this thread, “Morality without God?”, I find it quite easy to trace out the origins of morality without the need of a divine source.

Once consciousness arose in animals the next step was self-consciousness, the state of being aware of oneself...from the point that humans became aware they naturally connected the idea of right and wrong using themselves as the model for morality.

When one is aware of disliking something done to their own selves, one then projects that dislike onto others, hence the birth of the "Golden Rule" or "Morality". Self-consciousness is the state from which morality was born, that is what sets us apart from all the other animals...the ability to project our own feelings and desires onto another being and know that it is either right or wrong because of our own awareness.

Self-awareness also gave birth to the idea of purpose and beginnings. Naturally when one is aware of their own existence, the question emerges...where did I come from, and what is my purpose? Thus, the idea of a creator who formed us for a purpose naturally arose, since our origins are hidden from our understanding.

Sin, like morality is a concept, not an “objective fact”, which emerged out of the consciousness of man. Without the self-awareness of the human animal “sin”, like morality does not exist; it is not a law or principle upon which life is built. The concept of sin arose solely from the state of self-awareness of our own selves, and the idea that somehow the desires of our humanity are innately bad.


If morality exists as a “truth” in the universe in the same way as say the Pythagorean Theorem does then why has mans concept of what is moral continued to change with time, and consciousness level? Take for instance the biblical passage in Numbers 31, where Moses orders the Hebrew soldiers by command from God to kill all the male children and women who are not virgins, and then proceeds to give the remaining 32,000 virgins girls to the Hebrew soldiers to keep for themselves…by today’s moral standards killing women and children and taking people as slaves is totally unacceptable and immoral, yet the Hebrew’s in biblical times seemed to think God allowed such behavior.

Num.31:1-2 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. Num. 31:18-19 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

There are countless other examples in the Bible where acts that are considered immoral by today’s standards are commanded and condoned by its God. Morality appears to come solely from the emergence of self-awareness and the ability to reason, there is no need of a “Divine Source” as the author of morality.

Butterfly wrote:

Icthus wrote:
Um, did you happen to read the previous discussion before making this post? I don't want to sound rude, but the topic focuses mainly on the arguments from evil many atheists make about God's supposedly immoral behavior and how they often seem to assume either that God as portrayed in the Bible is evil (which requires that morality exists with which we can judge him) or that God contradicts himself by declaring something to be evil and then doing it himself. The topic has never been about how concepts of morality could arise in the human mind without God putting them there.

If you don't want to sound rude, then don't make rude statements. As I stated in my opening sentence, I am addressing the title of this thread "Morality Without God?", not other peoples ideas. The topic is anything to do with morality existing without God.

Icthus wrote:On a somewhat related note, the examples of extermination of other nations such as those you've just pointed out have already been mentioned, as has the rather simple answer that when God, for instance, ordered the destruction of the inhabitants of Palestine, he was not doing evil.

Who are you to say it wasn't evil? Of course killing innocent people and taking others as sex slaves is evil! Who told you differently?

Icthus wrote:I don't mean to nitpick, but your question "If morality exists as a “truth” in the universe in the same way as say the Pythagorean Theorem does then why has mans concept of what is moral continued to change with time, and consciousness level?" doesn't make sense to me. If objective morality exists, then human understanding of it has no bearing on whether it exists or not. Humanity has understood physics in different ways through the years, but that doesn't mean that the laws of physics themselves are inconsistent or don't hold outside the human mind.

Just because it doesn't make sense to you has no bearing on it accuracy. Human understanding has everything to do with whether or not objective morality exists. Without self aware humans there is no morality. The laws that govern the physical world are unchanging, which has nothing to do with how people have understood them.

PaulSacramento wrote:

I think you have a few assumptions there which is normal.
First off, the "golden rule" is a starting point and while most agree with it, not all agree that it is applicable to all people.
Viking marauders had issues with their women being raped but most certainty didn't have issues raping the women of others, so the "golden rule" may have worked amongst themselves but it certainly wasn't applied to outsiders.
Self- awareness is great, but you have to define it and explain why it would lead to any moral view at all that is consistent.

While its fine to comment on what we view as immoral, it should be asked on what grounds we do view it as immoral.

Icthus wrote:
Rude statements? All I was trying to do was point out that this topic had a specific focus. Generally, when one posts in a topic in which discussion has being going on, he or she responds to the questions or statements being made in it.

Icthus wrote:Your claim that "Human understanding has everything to do with whether or not objective morality exists. Without self aware humans there is no morality" still doesn't make sense as an argument. Morality exists, for instance, if God exists, regardless of whether or not self aware humans exist. If objective morals exist, they simply exist, even if we don't know them.

B. W. wrote:Point to consider...

Human beings are moral creatures (knowledge of good and bad) and have no idea what objective morality is or states unless revealed to them from a perfect objective moral source outside of themselves...

So would it be bad to deny this source or good to deny this source?
-
-
-

Butterfly wrote:

B. W. wrote:Point to consider...

Human beings are moral creatures (knowledge of good and bad) and have no idea what objective morality is or states unless revealed to them from a perfect objective moral source outside of themselves...

So would it be bad to deny this source or good to deny this source?
-
-
-

It's not a matter of denying a source, but rather stating that a source is not needed for self-conscious agents to be aware of morality. Morality does not need to be revealed through an outside source, when it emerges from within through the realization of treating others as oneself.

Butterfly wrote:It's a very simple idea and it applies universally, that is why so many great teachers like Confucius and Jesus taught it as the commandment that trumps all others.

Butterfly wrote:

B. W. wrote:Point to consider...

Human beings are moral creatures (knowledge of good and bad) and have no idea what objective morality is or states unless revealed to them from a perfect objective moral source outside of themselves...

So would it be bad to deny this source or good to deny this source?

It's not a matter of denying a source, but rather stating that a source is not needed for self-conscious agents to be aware of morality. Morality does not need to be revealed through an outside source, when it emerges from within through the realization of treating others as oneself.

PaulSacramento wrote:Too many people, even if they don't admit this to themselves, "treat others as you would have them treat you" is more correctly " treat others as you think they should be treated".

Katabole wrote:

Butterfly wrote:It's a very simple idea and it applies universally, that is why so many great teachers like Confucius and Jesus taught it as the commandment that trumps all others.

Have to correct you there. That is a common misconception trying to align the teaching of Jesus and Confucius, especially when Confucius said that he never claimed to be holy. Jesus did not teach the Golden Rule as the commandment that trumps all others. This is what Jesus said when he was asked what the greatest commandment was that trumps all others:

Matt 22:36-38 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

Katabole wrote:So how are we supposed to love God if we do not know what love is supposed to be in the first place? I mean, if the thoughts in my mind are simply the motions of atoms in my brain and my brain is the result of a mindless, unguided process, why should I believe anything it tells me, including that it is made of atoms?

Katabole wrote:In contrast to belief in God, the atheists' presuppositions must be constantly changing, and subjective and they do not demand love, patience, and the welfare of others. Instead, since the great majority of atheists are evolutionists, their morality, like evolution is the product of purely natural and random processes that become self-serving.