Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

melanie wrote:

Audie wrote:

melanie wrote:"I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians"
Gandhi

There have been threads on here about science turning people away from Christ.
How about religion and the 'church'. That was the biggest 'turn off' for me. I just couldn't swallow the hypocrisy.

Luckily, I was able to distinguish between religiousness and heartfelt Christianity.

I went through a time when I was younger when I wouldn't call myself a Christians not because I was ashamed of proclaiming Christ but I didn't want to be associated with a 'brand' of rightoueness that held no authenticity.

"For mine is the God of self righteousness"?

Looking in from the outside, that seems to be the thinking, if not the statement.

I also look in and see that Christians all say that they are remade into better people
thro' gods grace, some even going for that they are free of sin and can infallibly interpret the bible.

I dont believe its remotely true of all of them.

Yeah it's probably not the case of all of them Audie,
When we claim we have been changed it through a lens of humility or at least it should be. Never sinless or with infalliable interpretation. My transformation through Christ leads me to have greater understanding and empathy of others.
Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.
If a person who claims to be Christian wields it with a 'righteousness' to condemn and judge others then it is a form of 'Christianity' that doesn't sit right with me or ring true.

Cant go wrong with the golden rule.

I think evolution provided the mind, the body, and the basic social order on which we base morality and ethics, but the golden rule is not practiced by anyone but us, so far as we know.

Morality like "golden rule" was something people developed over and over, I think, in different societies, different parts of the world. Its like it was "out there", waiting to be discovered. Like math is "out there". (hey, DONT ask me how it got out there!)

Audie,
Could you explain the underlined part for me? How does the human mind fit into the ToE? Or, how did a non physical mind, evolve from the purely physical?

Do you consider that any other animal has a mind?

Audie wrote:
Do you consider that any other animal has a mind?

Yes. But for this question, is it relevant? You mentioned the mind in the context of "morality and ethics". So, we are talking about a human mind.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Do you consider that any other animal has a mind?

Yes. But for this question, is it relevant? You mentioned the mind in the context of "morality and ethics". So, we are talking about a human mind.

Do you recognize the existence of such things as altruism, emotions, as suchnot, in any animal except people?

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Do you consider that any other animal has a mind?

Yes. But for this question, is it relevant? You mentioned the mind in the context of "morality and ethics". So, we are talking about a human mind.

Do you recognize the existence of such things as altruism, emotions, as suchnot, in any animal except people?

Yes. Is this going to lead to an answer?

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Do you consider that any other animal has a mind?

Yes. But for this question, is it relevant? You mentioned the mind in the context of "morality and ethics". So, we are talking about a human mind.

Do you recognize the existence of such things as altruism, emotions, as suchnot, in any animal except people?

Yes. Is this going to lead to an answer?

I just want to see if there is any framework of common understanding here. Saying yes / no gives me that, and a one word response takes less effort than writing a q.

Do you feel that emotions etc in animals evolved, or are god given?

Do you hold that self awareness is unique to people? I wonder how it relates to a sense of morality.

Do you feel that the behaviour of any animal other than humans shows at least a rudimentary beginning for morals and ethics?

I slept maybe on hour last night. Im not sure of my own self awareness here.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Do you consider that any other animal has a mind?

Yes. But for this question, is it relevant? You mentioned the mind in the context of "morality and ethics". So, we are talking about a human mind.

Do you recognize the existence of such things as altruism, emotions, as suchnot, in any animal except people?

Yes. Is this going to lead to an answer?

1)I just want to see if there is any framework of common understanding here. Saying yes / no gives me that, and a one word response takes less effort than writing a q.

2)Do you feel that emotions etc in animals evolved, or are god given?

3)Do you hold that self awareness is unique to people? I wonder how it relates to a sense of morality.

4)Do you feel that the behaviour of any animal other than humans shows at least a rudimentary beginning for morals and ethics?

I slept maybe on hour last night. Im not sure of my own self awareness here.

Ok. My copy and paste isn't working on my brand new iPhone 6, so I hope you don't mind if I number your questions, then give answers that correspond to the numbers.

1) alrighty then.

2) why does it matter? I'm trying to find out how the human mind is accounted for in the ToE.

3) yes

4) no

But you know that I'm coming from a position that conflicts with the ToE. That's why I'm trying to understand it from the pov of the ToE.

Are you getting closer to answering what you think? Or are you going to keep asking what I think? If you have no answer, just say so.

later, RD, I dont have the energy for this now.

Audie wrote:later, RD, I dont have the energy for this now.

Sure Audie. Take your time. Get your beauty sleep.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:later, RD, I dont have the energy for this now.

Sure Audie. Take your time. Get your beauty sleep.

4)Do you feel that the behaviour of any animal other than humans shows at least a rudimentary beginning for morals and ethics?

And to that you say no..

I suppose I could list behaviours in animals that, when the same is practiced by humans we consider it moral or ethical. To which you say it isnt, I guess, so then its just is so / is not.

Anywhere left to go from there?

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:later, RD, I dont have the energy for this now.

Sure Audie. Take your time. Get your beauty sleep.

4)Do you feel that the behaviour of any animal other than humans shows at least a rudimentary beginning for morals and ethics?

And to that you say no..

I suppose I could list behaviours in animals that, when the same is practiced by humans we consider it moral or ethical. To which you say it isnt, I guess, so then its just is so / is not.

Anywhere left to go from there?

Only the answer to my question, that you haven't gotten to yet.
How does the human mind fit into the ToE? Explain how the non-physical mind evolve from the purely physical.

You are just showing that you believe other animals can be ethical. Or at least have the rudimentary beginnings of ethics.
You aren't telling me how it's accounted for in evolution.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:later, RD, I dont have the energy for this now.

Sure Audie. Take your time. Get your beauty sleep.

4)Do you feel that the behaviour of any animal other than humans shows at least a rudimentary beginning for morals and ethics?

And to that you say no..

I suppose I could list behaviours in animals that, when the same is practiced by humans we consider it moral or ethical. To which you say it isnt, I guess, so then its just is so / is not.

Anywhere left to go from there?

Only the answer to my question, that you haven't gotten to yet.
How does the human mind fit into the ToE? Explain how the non-physical mind evolve from the purely physical.

You are just showing that you believe other animals can be ethical. Or at least have the rudimentary beginnings of ethics.
You aren't telling me how it's accounted for in evolution.

How would you propose to demonstrate that the human mind is "non physical"?

Im disinclined to try to account for something that cant be shown to exist.

For something non physical, it sure has a lot of little calcium and potassium ions that have to be shuffled about.

I dont know of anything about the human mind that does not make sense as having been evolved.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:later, RD, I dont have the energy for this now.

Sure Audie. Take your time. Get your beauty sleep.

4)Do you feel that the behaviour of any animal other than humans shows at least a rudimentary beginning for morals and ethics?

And to that you say no..

I suppose I could list behaviours in animals that, when the same is practiced by humans we consider it moral or ethical. To which you say it isnt, I guess, so then its just is so / is not.

Anywhere left to go from there?

Only the answer to my question, that you haven't gotten to yet.
How does the human mind fit into the ToE? Explain how the non-physical mind evolve from the purely physical.

You are just showing that you believe other animals can be ethical. Or at least have the rudimentary beginnings of ethics.
You aren't telling me how it's accounted for in evolution.

How would you propose to demonstrate that the human mind is "non physical"?

Im disinclined to try to account for something that cant be shown to exist.

For something non physical, it sure has a lot of little calcium and potassium ions that have to be shuffled about.

I dont know of anything about the human mind that does not make sense as having been evolved.

Nevermind Audie. This is going nowhere. Thanks anyways.

Audie:

I dont know of anything about the human mind that does not make sense as having been evolved.

Do you know of anything that does make sense of the mind having been evolved, I believe is the question, and the reply, I believe, would constitute some physically evolved merit in proof.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:Audie:

I dont know of anything about the human mind that does not make sense as having been evolved.

Do you know of anything that does make sense of the mind having been evolved, I believe is the question, and the reply, I believe, would constitute some physically evolved merit in proof.

I've no idea what the part in bold means.

You do know that science is not in the biz of providing proof?

If you hold that evolution is false, does not exist, then of course nothing about how things evolve would be worth discussion.

Please clarify.

RD, you simply assert that the mind is non physical, then walk away when challenged. Id say that may be the best move.