Evidence for God from Science

This sort of logic is a slippery slope and will lead to further depravity, who gets to make the definition, by what standards do they make this definition?
I shall take my standards from God's objectivity and not your subjective immorality.

How do you know that I have a subjective immorality and how do you know that God is objective in the first place? Just because I refuse to follow God's advice and rules doesn't make me immoral. God as the Bible describes is the creator of all things etc etc. So his nature is either both subjective and objective or neither. I have already discussed this matter with a few of the people here and you can't actually prove that God is subjective/objective or moral/immoral. You just assume that God is objective and moral. If you assume that please let me assume that God can also be subjective and immoral, although my personal opinion is that God is both moral/immoral and both objective/subjective or neither.

Again, since God is the creator of all things he could choose to be objective/subjective or both or neither. But God never said anything about his own choices in the bible, he just gave advice and rules to follow. So you can't possibly know about God's choice.

This is more like a philosophical discussion which is nice and challenging, but please don't call me immoral again. You don't know me. The fact that I refuse to follow the same divine rules as you doesn't make you a better person or a moral person. If you have read the discussion you would probably know that I'm not pro or anti abortion. I'm in the middle because of the implications of such a decision. The fact that I talk here on this forum about other options and I give you examples of what happens in real life it's something else. Here we are discussing and debating. That's all.

BryanH wrote:God as the Bible describes is the creator of all things etc etc. So his nature is either both subjective and objective or neither.

And I both agree and disagree with you.

And I both agree and disagree with you.

At least you don't just disagree...

BryanH wrote:

And I both agree and disagree with you.

At least you don't just disagree...

Oh no, because if I did either agree OR disagree, I just might sound a bit rational.

Oh no, because if I did either agree OR disagree, I just might sound a bit rational

Don't worry. As you have noticed I am here to debate and discuss. Agreeing and disagreeing is part of that. So please feel free to add something to the discussion.

So his nature is either both subjective and objective or neither.

Please. Classical theism has proven this ages ago. If you care to dispute Thomas Aquinas, then you are welcome to read his five ways and prepare a rebuttal.

You just assume that God is objective and moral.

No sir. In fact, you are just assuming we are assuming. Since the work of Christian philosphy is well founded on this matter, I would most definately say the burden of proof is on you. I can only assume that you are an atheist or agnostic. And since you don't believe that the Christian God exist in the first place it is a bit ridiculous to try and 'prove'.

So you can't possibly know about God's choice.

Define choice.

This is more like a philosophical discussion which is nice and challenging, but please don't call me immoral again. You don't know me. The fact that I refuse to follow the same divine rules as you doesn't make you a better person or a moral person.

Why does that matter. If there is no objective morality, then why would anyone be offended by being called immoral. It's all subjective. Oh, and 'better' according to what?

I think my example was quite clear. The fact that the after 5-6 weeks there is brain activity that does not mean it is a human being. In the future it will be, but at the moment it is not.

Of course it's a human being. It has all the genetic info it will ever have. It is genetically unique. It is a sceintific fact that it is a developing human being. We have billions of case studies that this stage, taken to term, always results in an infant human being. Do you have any evidence that it develops into something other than an infant human being? BTW, a new born does not have the brain activity of a two year old.

BryanH wrote:

Oh no, because if I did either agree OR disagree, I just might sound a bit rational

Don't worry. As you have noticed I am here to debate and discuss. Agreeing and disagreeing is part of that. So please feel free to add something to the discussion.

When and if you provide a rational discussion, I'd be elated to participate in it.

Please. Classical theism has proven this ages ago. If you care to dispute Thomas Aquinas, then you are welcome to read his five ways and prepare a rebuttal.

I did some research on the five ways and it's quite interesting I might add. I will offer a response, but wanted to ask first if we shouldn't actually open another topic for this because it's quite different and not necessarily related to gay people and genetics.

Of course it's a human being. It has all the genetic info it will ever have. It is genetically unique. It is a sceintific fact that it is a developing human being. We have billions of case studies that this stage, taken to term, always results in an infant human being. Do you have any evidence that it develops into something other than an infant human being? BTW, a new born does not have the brain activity of a two year old.

In terms of genetics that unborn child could develop into something else if the DNA would be altered so yes, it can happen. I'm not saying that such an event is highly probable, but the answer is yes.

In terms of genetics that unborn child could develop into something else if the DNA would be altered so yes, it can happen. I'm not saying that such an event is highly probable, but the answer is yes.

Bryan, you're grasping at straws now. Of course an unborn human is nothing but human.

Bryan, you're grasping at straws now. Of course an unborn human is nothing but human.

I did say that such an event is highly improbable, but it can happen. I recommend the movie "Gattaca" if you haven't seen it already.

And there is in theory proof of such a happening: the birth of Jesus: although he looked human he was the son of God... so a baby that did not have a human origin came out of a human womb... (divine genetic intervention)

And there is in theory proof of such a happening: the birth of Jesus: although he looked human he was the son of God... so a baby that did not have a human origin came out of a human womb... (divine genetic intervention)

Jesus looked human, because He was human. He wasn't half man/ half God. The incarnate Christ was Fully human and fully God.
And my "grasping at straws" idiom still stands, if you're using the incarnation of Christ, to justify abortion. Just accept the fact that unborn humans, are nothing but humans, and we can move forward.

Just accept the fact that unborn humans, are nothing but humans, and we can move forward.

The fact that we disagree on certain aspects of abortion, does't mean that I have to accept something just to move forward...

Jesus looked human, because He was human. He wasn't half man/ half God. The incarnate Christ was Fully human and fully God.
And my "grasping at straws" idiom still stands, if you're using the incarnation of Christ, to justify abortion.

I just gave you an example of how genetics can be manipulated and how things are not what they seem to be.

Jesus looked human, because He was human. He wasn't half man/ half God. The incarnate Christ was Fully human and fully God.

Human and God at the same time... so he wasn't actually just human? The simple fact that Jesus had the ability to be of both human and God nature at the same time doesn't make him human. I don't know any human that can do that.

I understand that we disagree on certain facts and it's quite normal, but you have to admit that there are some things that are quite hard to digest in terms of scientific analysis...

Sorry to jump in late, but I'd like to critique this part of the page:

Homosexuality and Darwinism

I am not a huge fan of Neo Darwinian evolution. Nevertheless, there is some clear evidence that natural selection (and sexual selection) does act upon populations and has acted on our own species to produce racial differences.41 Natural selection postulates that those genetic mutations that favor survival and reproduction will be selected, whereas those that compromise survival and reproduction will be eliminated. Obviously, a gene or series of genes that produce non-reproducing individuals (i.e., those who express pure homosexual behavior) will be rapidly eliminated from any population. So, it would be expected that any "gay gene" would be efficiently removed from a population. However, it is possible that a gene favoring male homosexuality could "hide" within the human genome if it were located on the X-chromosome, where it could be carried by reproducing females, and not be subject to negative selection by non-reproducing males. In order to survive, the gene(s) would be expected to be associated with higher reproductive capacity in women who carry it (compensating for the generation of non-reproducing males). I can't imagine a genetic scenario in which female homosexuality would ever persist within a population.

Within the framework of darwinian evolution, there is nothing the necessarily precludes a gay gene so long as the compensating benefit outweighs the cost.

Here is the study where this result was published: http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090- ... 8/abstract

It is entitled: Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals

The gist is as such: If there is a gene that would occasionally and incidentally cause homosexuality in an individual, it can still be so evolutionarily advantageous in most of the population that the gene propagates successfully. The misconception that can trip people up is the binary interpretation of genetics (a gene is either on or off, it either causes X or doesn't). In reality, a gene can express itself in many different ways and it's not always clear how and why a gene does so.

Just thought I'd give you a heads-up on some of the scientific literature on the subject. Thanks. :]