Evidence for God from Science

waynepii wrote:I agree that the "perverted" acts are risky for anyone who engages in them, whether heterosexual or homosexual. "Normal" sex isn't exactly without risk either. And of course, about 50% of homosexuals can't engage in the "perverted act" (lesbians).

Hi wayne.. I realize we are going off topic here. Um. Not really. Lesbians can also transfer diseases...

"In one study of women who had sex only with women in the prior 12 months, 30 percent had bacterial vaginosis.70 Bacterial vaginosis is associated with higher risk for pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections."

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... 75.html#13

waynepii wrote:But why discriminate against some of those who do engage in these acts?

Well, if we look at the statistics, would you say that these practices are good for them? And if we look at the spread of AIDs and other diseases that could come from this, is that good for society? I do not see it as discrimination, we are trying to help these people... Also if we are talking about sins here, we are all guilty of it. I do not think hatred is a family value, so we can hate the sin but not the sinner...

Of course. And regretted it after the fact because I realized it was the wrong thing to have done.

That's good. That is either a voice that God designed within you, or another delusion of the mind. And no more significant that deciding what to eat for lunch.
The conscience bears witness to the reality of God. When you do something wrong, you KNOW it. It speaks to you, it gnaws at you.

That's not true, as I said in a prior post, whether I believe in the existence of ANY thing has no effect on the existence or non-existence of the thing.

I think you are missing my point. I would agree with that statement in my own application as well. However, I can't seem to reconcile it with...

Wayne expects ANY thing that he is to worship and obey to make its presence and its requirements known in a clear and unambiguous manner.

I am reading, Wayne has conditions (expects) and dictates on how God must be, and must present himself, and then Wayne will worship and obey. So saying your belief has no effect on something's existence is a true statement, but it fails to address the real point. Your belief does has an effect on how you filter the evidence. This is demostrated in our courts. Overwhelming evidence is presented to juries, and juries render verdicts based on feelings rather than evidence. Not all the time of course, but you get the idea.

I'm curious though. What makes you think you would repent, worship and obey, just because you had rock solid proof?

Regarding proof. How long ago was the radio invented? What about radio waves? Could it be that the problem is not in waves or the source of the waves, but in the receiver? You see I have learned too much about human nature to ever beleive that anyone would bow their knee to God just becuase they have a Mt. Sinai experience. If you ask the majority of married men, "do you want a great marriage?" They will respond, "yes!" Yet, half of those or more will engage in behavior and actions that are detremental to their marriages. I could site endless examples of mankinds self-destructive behavior where we say one thing and act in another way. So, forgive me if I don't just accpet that you are sincerely looking with open heart and open mind.

A treasure is generally hidden. However, when found, its existence is unambiguous to everyone.

Uhh, it's just an analogy. It doesn't mean that everything that is true about treasure is true about God. That's why we don't use analogies in apologetics. My bad.

So how do those who haven't been exposed to The Bible find God?

The 1st century church spread through out the entire Roman empire without a bible. Job didnt have a bible. Abraham didn't have a Bible. God's hand is not too short. He can reach anyone, anywhere, anytime, and has. There is some body being reached right now. Even in the most remote, forsaken place on the planet. There are Christian churches in Iran for Pete's sake. God can even reach through a chat board. Knock knock.

So how do those who haven't been exposed to The Bible find God?

The 1st century church spread through out the entire Roman empire without a bible. Job didnt have a bible. Abraham didn't have a Bible. God's hand is not too short. He can reach anyone, anywhere, anytime, and has. There is some body being reached right now. Even in the most remote, forsaken place on the planet. There are Christian churches in Iran for Pete's sake. God can even reach through a chat board. Knock knock.

Nicely spoken there jlay... Now why didn't I think of that before..?

I thought this article maybe useful too..

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... heard.html

jlay wrote:

Of course. And regretted it after the fact because I realized it was the wrong thing to have done.

That's good. That is either a voice that God designed within you, or another delusion of the mind. And no more significant that deciding what to eat for lunch.
The conscience bears witness to the reality of God. When you do something wrong, you KNOW it. It speaks to you, it gnaws at you.

Or that I am a reasonably responsible, decent, and caring human being.

That's not true, as I said in a prior post, whether I believe in the existence of ANY thing has no effect on the existence or non-existence of the thing.

I think you are missing my point. I would agree with that statement in my own application as well. However, I can't seem to reconcile it with...

Wayne expects ANY thing that he is to worship and obey to make its presence and its requirements known in a clear and unambiguous manner.

I am reading, Wayne has conditions (expects) and dictates on how God must be, and must present himself, and then Wayne will worship and obey. So saying your belief has no effect on something's existence is a true statement, but it fails to address the real point. Your belief does has an effect on how you filter the evidence. This is demostrated in our courts. Overwhelming evidence is presented to juries, and juries render verdicts based on feelings rather than evidence. Not all the time of course, but you get the idea.

I really hate it when an atheist compares belief in God with belief in various mythical beings, and that is not my intent. However, as an analogy, what would it take to convince YOU that there really was a tooth fairy? I am sure you "know" the tooth fairy doesn't exist, although it is impossible to definitively prove that anything doesn't exist. What would you think if you lost a tooth and the next morning found a quarter under your pillow? Would you then be a "tooth fairy believer", or would you just assume a coincidence in that a stray quarter ended up under the pillow when the bed was made? What if I said that I believe in the tooth fairy and that the appearance of the quarter is such obvious proof no further proof is required - would that do it for you? Or would you require some more definitive proof? What would convince you?

Again, I am in no way trying to belittle your beliefs or equate God and the tooth fairy, just trying to put my doubts into a form that you might be better able to understand.

I'm curious though. What makes you think you would repent, worship and obey, just because you had rock solid proof?

I disbelieve a lot of things (tooth fairy, the Loch Ness monster, ghosts, ... ). I now believe in a few things that I doubted in the past. When presented with suitable evidence, I am quite capable of admitting my error and changing my mind. I've done it in the past and will do it again when warranted.

Regarding proof. How long ago was the radio invented? What about radio waves?

Before radio waves were discovered, no one was going around selling radios. Radio waves were discovered as a result of the evidence that they existed.

Could it be that the problem is not in waves or the source of the waves, but in the receiver? You see I have learned too much about human nature to ever beleive that anyone would bow their knee to God just becuase they have a Mt. Sinai experience. If you ask the majority of married men, "do you want a great marriage?" They will respond, "yes!" Yet, half of those or more will engage in behavior and actions that are detremental to their marriages. I could site endless examples of mankinds self-destructive behavior where we say one thing and act in another way. So, forgive me if I don't just accpet that you are sincerely looking with open heart and open mind.

My mind and heart ARE open, I just haven't seen any evidence other than a book of questionable origin, and many people who say they are convinced but are generally unable to explain why or how they were convinced. In at least many cases, I suspect they are far less sure than they say they are and are ...

• ... worshiping God "just in case", and/or
• going to church "for the sake of their children", and/or
• going to church for social contact, and/or
• going to church because "it's expected" by family members, friends, etc, and/or
• etc

A treasure is generally hidden. However, when found, its existence is unambiguous to everyone.

Uhh, it's just an analogy. It doesn't mean that everything that is true about treasure is true about God. That's why we don't use analogies in apologetics. My bad.

No problem.

So how do those who haven't been exposed to The Bible find God?

The 1st century church spread through out the entire Roman empire without a bible. Job didnt have a bible. Abraham didn't have a Bible. God's hand is not too short. He can reach anyone, anywhere, anytime, and has. There is some body being reached right now. Even in the most remote, forsaken place on the planet. There are Christian churches in Iran for Pete's sake. God can even reach through a chat board. Knock knock.

In the first century, the only explanation man had for pretty much anything was that (some) god did it. In the interim, we now have non-divine explanations for much that affects us. For example, we no longer have to trust to prayers and rituals to try to save us from diseases that now are fairly routinely cured or at least managed. In fact, a person who withholds medical care from a sick child in favor of prayer now runs the risk of prosecution.

The point being that gods were an integral part of daily life in the 1st century and there was little in the way of alternatives - people found god because they expected to and there was no alternate explanation for even the most mundane aspects of their world.

wayne wrote:Or that I am a reasonably responsible, decent, and caring human being.

Says who?! Again, how do you define this and what gves you the right to declare your way the right way.

If morality is simply the currentselection solution for humanity, then there is nothing inherently right or wrong. We go right back to my original argument. If, in 500 years, murder was sanctioned....ie morality had changed, and it had changed acording to the fitness of the humans involved and their upbringing, then it stands that there is noting inherently wrong with that morality.

And if there is nothing iherently wrong with that morality, then there can't be ANY moral stance against it now. IN other words, you r morality is simply the current MODE, the current fashion statement in ethics.

It goes bak to Jac's argument about preferences. If, indeed, morality is simply the current solution, it IS simply a preference and therefore nothing i really right or wrong, merely what wins in an argument, wins in the poltical arena, or, most depressing, simply what is able to succeed without getting caught.

Who are you, in this grand fight for survival and reproduction of ideas and ethics, other than a morality bully? You force your morality, your statement that "such and such behahvior" us wrong and *this action*, *this thought* onto the masses? Why shouldn't rape be considered permissible? Because a certain set of genes caused some of the human population to consider it wrong? To allow us the empathy to see that we wouldn't want another person's female to be forced into sex?!?

PLenty of male animals force sexual relations while the female is in estrus, plenty of animals bite the female and hold her down. An aberration in our genes that causes us to view that as distasteful...that is all morality is? THen it IS a preference and nothing more...worse it's simply a matter of some mutation that set in motion a certain part of our brain that registers empathy and perspective. And in that case...who are we to judge a person whose brain is misfiring in this part of the brain?!? NOw you may say that those human that are more empathetic create a more attractive mate and thus this empathy allowed for greater fitness in the human population, but this could easily change again.


And if I may anticipate an argument that we are morality bullies ourselves, then absolutely....our worldview, our view establishes a moral right and wrong (and we proclaim that all people, including atheists, inherently know this even if they reject the basis for their morality). But an athiest worldview, one that rests upon evolution, merely rests upon some vague idea of preferences, not realizing that the murderer or rapist is just as justified in their ethical decisions (after all, if our genes create out preferences, than hw can we judge another's morality?!?)

wayn wrote:My mind and heart ARE open, I just haven't seen any evidence other than a book of questionable origin, and many people who say they are convinced but are generally unable to explain why or how they were convinced. In at least many cases, I suspect they are far less sure than they say they are and are ...

... worshiping God "just in case", and/or
going to church "for the sake of their children", and/or
going to church for social contact, and/or
going to church because "it's expected" by family members, friends, etc, and/or
etc

Wayne, may I ask what apologetics books you hve read?


And just for the record, I worship God because I believe He exists because of the evidence supported by history, philosophy, HIs word, my experience, and yes, His creation. I don't worship Him just in case, or for social contract, or because it is expected. And MY experience shows that many are sincere in their beliefs.

Wayne, if you could pinpoint something about God or the Bible that would prevent from believing it, what would that be? What exactly is it? Please be open about it... Don't be threatened by us. We'll be fair with you...

Thank you.

You have something within you that is able to convince. Your concience.

Or that I am a reasonably responsible, decent, and caring human being.

So, you have always acted in accordance to your concience? You've never done anything against what your conscience convinced you was wrong? Is lying wrong in your responsible, decent, caring life?
How many lies have you told in your life?

Proverbs 20:6
"Most men will proclaim each his own goodness, But who can find a faithful man?"
Prov. 16:2
"All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the spirits."



Actually there are very good reasons while people are convinced. Just because you fail to recoginize them as convincing doesn't mean they are not. Again, could it be the receiver that is faulty?

I really hate it when an atheist compares belief in God with belief in various mythical beings, and that is not my intent. However, as an analogy, what would it take to convince YOU that there really was a tooth fairy? I am sure you "know" the tooth fairy doesn't exist, although it is impossible to definitively prove that anything doesn't exist. What would you think if you lost a tooth and the next morning found a quarter under your pillow? Would you then be a "tooth fairy believer", or would you just assume a coincidence in that a stray quarter ended up under the pillow when the bed was made? What if I said that I believe in the tooth fairy and that the appearance of the quarter is such obvious proof no further proof is required - would that do it for you? Or would you require some more definitive proof? What would convince you?

Your stubborness in recognizing the simple point in an analogy precludes me from even attempting to digest yours. Can the info be good and the the source be good, yet the receiver faulty or not tuned in? And all you come away with is retail conditions for radios.

BW wrote a book about an extremely convincing event in his life. I had an extremely convincing event in my life. And there are many, many others. But I doubt you are not going to "trust" those either.

When presented with suitable evidence, I am quite capable of admitting my error and changing my mind. I've done it in the past and will do it again when warranted.

That is a far cry from repenting, oberying and worshipping. your conscience provides you with suitable evidence. Evidence that lying is wrong. Yet have you faithfully followed your conscience. Having head knowledge isn't the same as heart knowledge. Do you really think an absolute rock solid proof is going to cause you to completely surrender your life? I think not.

... worshiping God "just in case", and/or
going to church "for the sake of their children", and/or
going to church for social contact, and/or
going to church because "it's expected" by family members, friends, etc, and/or
etc

What does that have to do with YOU?
Counterfeits are not evidence agaisnt the real. You can't worship God unless you have true heart belief. Anybody can go to church. We are not talking about going to church. Is there such things as conterfeit money? Have you ever heard of crooked lawyers? have you ever gotten a bad meal? What about quack doctors?
Yet, you still handle money, use the legal system, eat out, and trust medical help? You are not being consistent here.

people found god because they expected to

Shame on them. So, you don't expect to? Which is it, open or not?

In the first century, the only explanation man had for pretty much anything was that (some) god did it. In the interim, we now have non-divine explanations for much that affects us. For example, we no longer have to trust to prayers and rituals to try to save us from diseases that now are fairly routinely cured or at least managed. In fact, a person who withholds medical care from a sick child in favor of prayer now runs the risk of prosecution.

The point being that gods were an integral part of daily life in the 1st century and there was little in the way of alternatives - people found god because they expected to and there was no alternate explanation for even the most mundane aspects of their world.

This is an example of historical snobbery. You asked the question, "how do those who haven't been exposed to The Bible find God?" I answered. Your answers only confirm that no answer is good enough to overcome your predjudices. Claiming your ARE open, is easy to say, and hard to be.

Open? I would say you are non-hostile, but not open. You say we haven't provided you any solid evidence. You haven't provided any solid evidence to convince me you are sincerely open. In fact I have some evidence to the contrary.

zoegirl wrote:

wayne wrote:Or that I am a reasonably responsible, decent, and caring human being.

Says who?! Again, how do you define this and what gves you the right to declare your way the right way.

Do you not understand the word "or", as in another hypothesis?

If morality is simply the currentselection solution for humanity, then there is nothing inherently right or wrong. We go right back to my original argument. If, in 500 years, murder was sanctioned....ie morality had changed, and it had changed acording to the fitness of the humans involved and their upbringing, then it stands that there is noting inherently wrong with that morality.

Murder generally fails the "do unto others" test. OTOH Killing (aka "murder") of certain people seems to be at least tolerated in the Old Testament.

And if there is nothing iherently wrong with that morality, then there can't be ANY moral stance against it now. IN other words, you r morality is simply the current MODE, the current fashion statement in ethics.

We've had this discussion before. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, has very different attitudes about punishment than current society. For example; the role of women, tolerance of plural marriage and slavery, among others. There was recently a thread on this forum consisting of much interpretation and reading between the lines in an attempt to make the OT's tolerance of slavery jibe with present attitudes.

BTW Slavery and discrimination against women also fail the "do unto others" test.

It goes bak to Jac's argument about preferences. If, indeed, morality is simply the current solution, it IS simply a preference and therefore nothing i really right or wrong, merely what wins in an argument, wins in the poltical arena, or, most depressing, simply what is able to succeed without getting caught.

As I said innumerable times, it's not a preference.

Who are you, in this grand fight for survival and reproduction of ideas and ethics, other than a morality bully? You force your morality, your statement that "such and such behahvior" us wrong and *this action*, *this thought* onto the masses? Why shouldn't rape be considered permissible? Because a certain set of genes caused some of the human population to consider it wrong? To allow us the empathy to see that we wouldn't want another person's female to be forced into sex?!?

PLenty of male animals force sexual relations while the female is in estrus, plenty of animals bite the female and hold her down. An aberration in our genes that causes us to view that as distasteful...that is all morality is? THen it IS a preference and nothing more...worse it's simply a matter of some mutation that set in motion a certain part of our brain that registers empathy and perspective. And in that case...who are we to judge a person whose brain is misfiring in this part of the brain?!? NOw you may say that those human that are more empathetic create a more attractive mate and thus this empathy allowed for greater fitness in the human population, but this could easily change again.


And if I may anticipate an argument that we are morality bullies ourselves, then absolutely....our worldview, our view establishes a moral right and wrong (and we proclaim that all people, including atheists, inherently know this even if they reject the basis for their morality). But an athiest worldview, one that rests upon evolution, merely rests upon some vague idea of preferences, not realizing that the murderer or rapist is just as justified in their ethical decisions (after all, if our genes create out preferences, than hw can we judge another's morality?!?)

I've told you, in concrete terms, what I use for a "moral compass". What do YOU use, in concrete terms?

And as for who is the "morality bully", which of us is trying to impose their worldview on others. I tolerate homosexuals, do you? I have no problem with gay marriage, do you? I tolerate people who have different moral standards so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, do you?

wayn wrote:My mind and heart ARE open, I just haven't seen any evidence other than a book of questionable origin, and many people who say they are convinced but are generally unable to explain why or how they were convinced. In at least many cases, I suspect they are far less sure than they say they are and are ...

... worshiping God "just in case", and/or
going to church "for the sake of their children", and/or
going to church for social contact, and/or
going to church because "it's expected" by family members, friends, etc, and/or
etc

Wayne, may I ask what apologetics books you hve read?


And just for the record, I worship God because I believe He exists because of the evidence supported by history, philosophy, HIs word, my experience, and yes, His creation. I don't worship Him just in case, or for social contract, or because it is expected. And MY experience shows that many are sincere in their beliefs.

I'm happy for you.

Wayyne,

YOu haven't addressed the question of what books you have read concerning the Bible. Many of the criticisms you have withthe Bible are common criticisms from those who havent studied it, the language, the culture, etc. We can indeed address them, but you are not listening to Jac's arguments or mine.

You are still missing the point. The "do unto others" test that youhave is simply a test that YOu prefer. Why is yor test better than anothers?

Instead of addredssing the argument, all you are doing is continuing to rest upon "do unto others", which is no foundation, merely a nice little story that a culture has developed. Cultures can change.

[quote=wayne"]As I said innumerable times, it's not a preference. [/quote]

YOu prefer "do unto others". And I'm not disagreeing with you that it is a nice test. The question is why is your test any more valid than the murderer''s IN YOUR WORLDVIEW? YOur worldview states this test is that result of a devlopment in our neuron pathways stemming form our genes and then taught and maintained in the culure through upbringing. That test, that pathway, that ability to feel empathy, is inherently no better than the animals that rape and kill. YOur genes and your culture tell you that?

If culture changed, if our brains changed so that "do unto others" was not deemed reasonable, then YOU can have no objection, for the worldview you hold is that morality is the result of genes and upbringing. IF those change, if the genes and upbringing change so that the "do unto others" test is not resulting in fitness, then the current mode of ethics simply changes.

NOw we can address the morality of the Bible, but you continually resist answering these questions, other than proclaiming "it's not a preference".

BTW, here is a good starter for some of the criticisms you have http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... anity.html

jlay wrote:You have something within you that is able to convince. Your concience.

Or that I am a reasonably responsible, decent, and caring human being.

So, you have always acted in accordance to your concience? You've never done anything against what your conscience convinced you was wrong? Is lying wrong in your responsible, decent, caring life?
How many lies have you told in your life?

Proverbs 20:6
"Most men will proclaim each his own goodness, But who can find a faithful man?"
Prov. 16:2
"All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the spirits."

There you go putting words in my mouth again. I've already said I've done some things that violated my moral compass and that I felt bad about it afterwards. And THIS is your "proof" of God? Could it not be that social animals are wired to conform to the group? Could it not be that this is the root of our conscience?

Actually there are very good reasons while people are convinced. Just because you fail to recoginize them as convincing doesn't mean they are not. Again, could it be the receiver that is faulty?

Convince me there's something to receive.

I really hate it when an atheist compares belief in God with belief in various mythical beings, and that is not my intent. However, as an analogy, what would it take to convince YOU that there really was a tooth fairy? I am sure you "know" the tooth fairy doesn't exist, although it is impossible to definitively prove that anything doesn't exist. What would you think if you lost a tooth and the next morning found a quarter under your pillow? Would you then be a "tooth fairy believer", or would you just assume a coincidence in that a stray quarter ended up under the pillow when the bed was made? What if I said that I believe in the tooth fairy and that the appearance of the quarter is such obvious proof no further proof is required - would that do it for you? Or would you require some more definitive proof? What would convince you?

Your stubborness in recognizing the simple point in an analogy precludes me from even attempting to digest yours. Can the info be good and the the source be good, yet the receiver faulty or not tuned in? And all you come away with is retail conditions for radios.

You presented an analogy? The only one I remember you then retracted. If there is another, please restate it or direct me to it.

Are you going to answer mine?

BW wrote a book about an extremely convincing event in his life. I had an extremely convincing event in my life. And there are many, many others. But I doubt you are not going to "trust" those either.

I'm willing to read about them, but I'm not willing to accept them at face value without supporting evidence. I don't distrust your sincerity, but believers can tend to see "proof" in simple coincidence, happenstance, and probability. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. As in my "tooth fairy" analogy which you declined to answer.

When presented with suitable evidence, I am quite capable of admitting my error and changing my mind. I've done it in the past and will do it again when warranted.

That is a far cry from repenting, oberying and worshipping. your conscience provides you with suitable evidence. Evidence that lying is wrong. Yet have you faithfully followed your conscience. Having head knowledge isn't the same as heart knowledge. Do you really think an absolute rock solid proof is going to cause you to completely surrender your life? I think not.

Trust me, "rock solid" evidence WILL convince me. I just doubt that such evidence exists, but if it does I will be convinced.

... worshiping God "just in case", and/or
going to church "for the sake of their children", and/or
going to church for social contact, and/or
going to church because "it's expected" by family members, friends, etc, and/or
etc

What does that have to do with YOU?
Counterfeits are not evidence agaisnt the real. You can't worship God unless you have true heart belief. Anybody can go to church. We are not talking about going to church. Is there such things as conterfeit money? Have you ever heard of crooked lawyers? have you ever gotten a bad meal? What about quack doctors?
Yet, you still handle money, use the legal system, eat out, and trust medical help? You are not being consistent here.

Are there not false prophets? People using religion to take advantage of the unwary? Cults? Religious extremists?

people found god because they expected to

Shame on them. So, you don't expect to? Which is it, open or not?

In the first century, the only explanation man had for pretty much anything was that (some) god did it. In the interim, we now have non-divine explanations for much that affects us. For example, we no longer have to trust to prayers and rituals to try to save us from diseases that now are fairly routinely cured or at least managed. In fact, a person who withholds medical care from a sick child in favor of prayer now runs the risk of prosecution.

The point being that gods were an integral part of daily life in the 1st century and there was little in the way of alternatives - people found god because they expected to and there was no alternate explanation for even the most mundane aspects of their world.

This is an example of historical snobbery. You asked the question, "how do those who haven't been exposed to The Bible find God?" I answered. Your answers only confirm that no answer is good enough to overcome your predjudices. Claiming your ARE open, is easy to say, and hard to be.

Open? I would say you are non-hostile, but not open. You say we haven't provided you any solid evidence. You haven't provided any solid evidence to convince me you are sincerely open. In fact I have some evidence to the contrary.

Well, you're right, I'm not open to the "evidence" I've seen so far.

zoegirl wrote:Wayyne,

YOu haven't addressed the question of what books you have read concerning the Bible. Many of the criticisms you have withthe Bible are common criticisms from those who havent studied it, the language, the culture, etc. We can indeed address them, but you are not listening to Jac's arguments or mine.

You are still missing the point. The "do unto others" test that youhave is simply a test that YOu prefer. Why is yor test better than anothers?

Because ...

1. It's relatively absolute (most people don't want to be raped, murdered, stolen from, discriminated against, beaten, enslaved, scammed, abused, ... )
2. it's relatively constant (most people x years ago didn't want to be raped, murdered, stolen from, discriminated against, beaten, enslaved, scammed, abused, ... )
3. it's straightforward (not sure what to do? Just reverse the roles and see your options from the other's viewpoint)
4. it's simple
5. it handles most situations
6. it's fairly reliable

It is possible to come up with examples where "do unto others" fails, but it works fine in most real situations.

Instead of addredssing the argument, all you are doing is continuing to rest upon "do unto others", which is no foundation, merely a nice little story that a culture has developed. Cultures can change.

I think you'll find it's a lot more if you take the time to think about it.

wayne wrote:As I said innumerable times, it's not a preference.

YOu prefer "do unto others". And I'm not disagreeing with you that it is a nice test. The question is why is your test any more valid than the murderer''s IN YOUR WORLDVIEW? YOur worldview states this test is that result of a devlopment in our neuron pathways stemming form our genes and then taught and maintained in the culure through upbringing. That test, that pathway, that ability to feel empathy, is inherently no better than the animals that rape and kill. YOur genes and your culture tell you that?

If culture changed, if our brains changed so that "do unto others" was not deemed reasonable, then YOU can have no objection, for the worldview you hold is that morality is the result of genes and upbringing. IF those change, if the genes and upbringing change so that the "do unto others" test is not resulting in fitness, then the current mode of ethics simply changes.

NOw we can address the morality of the Bible, but you continually resist answering these questions, other than proclaiming "it's not a preference".

I've read the OT and NT cover to cover several times.
I've read Thomas Aquinas.
I've gone thru G&S pretty thoroughly
What other questions?

BTW, here is a good starter for some of the criticisms you have http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... anity.html

I've read it, and most of the rest of the site

Gman wrote:Wayne, if you could pinpoint something about God or the Bible that would prevent from believing it, what would that be? What exactly is it? Please be open about it... Don't be threatened by us. We'll be fair with you...

Thank you.

I'll write it up and post it.

waynepii wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Wayyne,

YOu haven't addressed the question of what books you have read concerning the Bible. Many of the criticisms you have withthe Bible are common criticisms from those who havent studied it, the language, the culture, etc. We can indeed address them, but you are not listening to Jac's arguments or mine.

You are still missing the point. The "do unto others" test that youhave is simply a test that YOu prefer. Why is yor test better than anothers?

Because ...

1. It's relatively absolute (most people don't want to be raped, murdered, stolen from, discriminated against, beaten, enslaved, scammed, abused, ... )
2. it's relatively constant (most people x years ago didn't want to be raped, murdered, stolen from, discriminated against, beaten, enslaved, scammed, abused, ... )
3. it's straightforward (not sure what to do? Just reverse the roles and see your options from the other's viewpoint)
4. it's simple
5. it handles most situations
6. it's fairly reliable

It is possible to come up with examples where "do unto others" fails, but it works fine in most real situations.

To all of these, I still say, so what? Why is THIS method more *RIGHT* than the society who selects those who will die....by the way Richard Dawkins actually supports this idea

http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Read/ ... x?aid=9490

NOte his quote....there is no good or evil.

Dawkins wrote:If the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies... are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention... In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.(1)

Great....murder and mayhem can be the order of the day, after all, there IS no justice....people will get hurt.

http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Read/ ... x?aid=9508

wayne wrote:

Instead of addredssing the argument, all you are doing is continuing to rest upon "do unto others", which is no foundation, merely a nice little story that a culture has developed. Cultures can change.

I think you'll find it's a lot more if you take the time to think about it.

Wayne, I AGREE that there is a lot more to it. In fact, I KNOW there is a lot more to it. MOral law, as CS Lewis states, is part of our inherent notion that there is an OBJECTIVE fairness, OBJECTIVE right and wrong. There is evil and there is good. My worldview champions "do unto others". YOu have no right to proclaim that your notion of sweetness and goodness and fairness is the proper way for us to be.

All I have been saying is that according to a natrualistic worldview....YOUR notion of "do unto others" is simply *your* preference. Despite its easiness, despite its workability (which you are right, it is a good notion!), if all we are is animals, then who are YOU to proclaim that YOUR genes, YOUR upbringing, and YOUR notion of right and wrong is better?!?!

YOU dislike it...so what?!?!? Animal kill...so what?

wayne wrote:As I said innumerable times, it's not a preference.

YOu prefer "do unto others". And I'm not disagreeing with you that it is a nice test. The question is why is your test any more valid than the murderer''s IN YOUR WORLDVIEW? YOur worldview states this test is that result of a devlopment in our neuron pathways stemming form our genes and then taught and maintained in the culure through upbringing. That test, that pathway, that ability to feel empathy, is inherently no better than the animals that rape and kill. YOur genes and your culture tell you that?

If culture changed, if our brains changed so that "do unto others" was not deemed reasonable, then YOU can have no objection, for the worldview you hold is that morality is the result of genes and upbringing. IF those change, if the genes and upbringing change so that the "do unto others" test is not resulting in fitness, then the current mode of ethics simply changes.

HOw about actually addressing these points?

Have you read Mere Christianity?

zoegirl wrote: http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Read/ ... x?aid=9490

NOte his quote....there is no good or evil.

Great....murder and mayhem can be the order of the day, after all, there IS no justice....people will get hurt.

http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Read/ ... x?aid=9508

Interesting you would quote Joe Boot zoe... A few weeks ago he came to our Church, and had everyone here spellbound... I think he is one of the more influential speakers of our century. He is the bomb, imo.... I wouldn't want to debate him.

Wayne, I AGREE that there is a lot more to it. In fact, I KNOW there is a lot more to it. MOral law, as CS Lewis states, is part of our inherent notion that there is an OBJECTIVE fairness, OBJECTIVE right and wrong. There is evil and there is good. My worldview champions "do unto others". YOu have no right to proclaim that your notion of sweetness and goodness and fairness is the proper way for us to be.

All I have been saying is that according to a natrualistic worldview....YOUR notion of "do unto others" is simply *your* preference. Despite its easiness, despite its workability (which you are right, it is a good notion!), if all we are is animals, then who are YOU to proclaim that YOUR genes, YOUR upbringing, and YOUR notion of right and wrong is better?!?!

YOU dislike it...so what?!?!? Animal kill...so what?

At least I've clearly defined what my morality is based on. What (exactly) is yours based on? Why is yours "better" than mine? It's easy to cast stones, how about something to back up your claims? Prove my morality is invalid. What makes your morality objective (yes I know what "objective" means, which is exactly why I ask).

For example, one difference between your morality and mine is gay marriage. Gay marriage is of no concern to me because I wouldn't want someone telling me who I could or couldn't marry. On what would you base the right to deny marriage to a committed, monogamous, same-sex couple? If you'd prefer to use a less contentious example, feel free. I am interested in how your moral compass works, not upon debating the issue of gay marriage.