Evidence for God from Science

I have been debating with my friends as to how a moral standard leads us to believe in an intelligent designer, and I was wondering what your thoughts were on what my friend said:

Simply having a standard doesn't prove anything as far as the scheme of the universe goes. We all have survival instincts similar to that of animals; we are simply more "evolved" to the extent that we can get to a level of "higher thinking" in which our survival instincts have been shrouded in the idea of "feeling good". Because of this, we reach the point at which we create a moral compass based around what makes us feel good during our time on earth. Murder isn't bad in the majorities eyes because its "wrong", but rather because murder is generally a threat to the survival instinct, and we as mammals have negative responses to things that threaten our existence. That's why people have a variety of moral compasses. Some people don't view certain things as threats to their survival because of either how they were raised or their environment. "Good" and "bad" are at most just a human-warped view of how we feel in respect to our survival. Feeling bad makes survival a pain, so if you cut off the things that feel bad, you're only left with the good and the happy.

I have to say that I do agree with him in a lot of points, what say you!?

Simply having a standard doesn't prove anything as far as the scheme of the universe goes. We all have survival instincts similar to that of animals; we are simply more "evolved" to the extent that we can get to a level of "higher thinking" in which our survival instincts have been shrouded in the idea of "feeling good". Because of this, we reach the point at which we create a moral compass based around what makes us feel good during our time on earth. Murder isn't bad in the majorities eyes because its "wrong", but rather because murder is generally a threat to the survival instinct, and we as mammals have negative responses to things that threaten our existence. That's why people have a variety of moral compasses. Some people don't view certain things as threats to their survival because of either how they were raised or their environment. "Good" and "bad" are at most just a human-warped view of how we feel in respect to our survival. Feeling bad makes survival a pain, so if you cut off the things that feel bad, you're only left with the good and the happy.

That's just another evolutionist "cool" story that attempts to reduce humans to mere chemicals. Someone once said that if one started to believe that he descended from apes, he will start acting like an ape. It may be difficult to improve, but of course it's far easier to degrade yourself and start behaving like an animal - using viciously circular reasoning to justify that behaviour. While animals obey their instincts, humans reason, which explains why we are capable of grasping the immaterial, such as concepts, ideas, logic, or morality. Since we know (empirically) that it works, it means we accurately perceive the world around us and make decisions based on rationality, not on some genes that randomly assembled themselves. Sure, we do have instincts that cause certain desires within us, but ultimately we decide whether to act upon them or not. The fact that some people can't, or don't want to resist their inner urges, is not my problem.

There are moral laws and codes that have been around since the beginning, but guess what - some people obey them, some do not. It brings us back to decision making. If we human "mammals" indeed saw murder as something threatening to our survival, it would be universially rejected, and there wouldn't be any murder. However, some use their free choice to act against the moral law and kill someone. Most of us would condemn that act, but some (moral relativists) would say that murder is neither wrong nor right. So what does that mean - moral relativists don't have that gene installed?? Evolutionists easily forget that whatever applies to humanity, applies to them as well, so if we're preconditioned to believe in God, then they are likewise preconditioned to believe in atheism. Besides, condemning dangerous acts has nothing to do with the survival of mankind as a whole. How would you then justify millions of abortions worldwide? Many seem to be fine with it, why? Because we were born, nobody's going to abort us! However, someone may murder us, so suddenly, the life of a human adult seems to have value. Selfishness at its best, however as you can see, it has very little to do with the survival of our species.

By the way, since I mentioned the topic of abortion, really, why does it happen, from an evolutionary point of view? Since it seems that the meaning of our life is to reproduce, why prevent that process? Some evolutionists say that the purpose of male-female relationships is solely to reproduce, so why do people use birth control? Why are some singles happier than some other people, who happen to have children? Why do we appreciate collections of sound waves or electromagnetic waves that we call works of art? How does a collection of randomly assembled chemicals come to the conclusion that it's a collection of randomly assembled chemicals?? So many questions unanswered, obviously because the entire Social Darwinist theory (or whatever euphemism they invented for it these days) is a failure.

Simply having a standard doesn't prove anything as far as the scheme of the universe goes. We all have survival instincts similar to that of animals; we are simply more "evolved" to the extent that we can get to a level of "higher thinking" in which our survival instincts have been shrouded in the idea of "feeling good".

The whole statement presupposes evolution without offereing any proof. There is simply no way to prove any of that. It is all speculative.

That's why people have a variety of moral compasses. Some people don't view certain things as threats to their survival because of either how they were raised or their environment.

OK, so Hitler wasn't wrong? That means rapist, people who torture puppies for pleasure, and serial killers aren't really wrong, but just products of nature and environment. Nice.

Mar, just exactly what points do you agree on here?

Mariolee wrote:I have been debating with my friends as to how a moral standard leads us to believe in an intelligent designer, and I was wondering what your thoughts were on what my friend said:

Ok, let's deal with this in some detail:

Simply having a standard doesn't prove anything as far as the scheme of the universe goes.

Is that a standard or not? Saying that nothing is proven contingent on something else is a standard, is it not? Why should we accept that standard, or even just that statement? It is a judgment of true vs non-true. What is the basis for that statement? Where is the argument? What is the "scheme of the universe"? The statement overall is arbitrary and vague.

We all have survival instincts similar to that of animals

This is just an assertion, and sneaks in an attempt to generalize. Survival instincts differ between species anyway, and the dilemma is that some people willingly give up their lives for others. To say that people do that to ensure the survival of the species is nonsense, because often giving their life means killing other humans in the process. In addition, to argue that human survival is equal to that of animals attempts to put us on the same moral level as animals, which is quite ridiculous, given our self-consciousness and abilities to reason.

; we are simply more "evolved" to the extent that we can get to a level of "higher thinking" in which our survival instincts have been shrouded in the idea of "feeling good".

Simply another assertion...But even assuming the truth of this argument, there is no selective advantage to "feeling good". In addition, what is the biochemical pathway for evolving good feelings? What are the mutations required, in which part of the DNA? Where did it start, and why? What environmental pressure was brought in the world of our ancestors that made the "feeling good" mutation survive as part of the survival instinct, instead of "feeling scared" or "feeling anxious" for example?

Because of this, we reach the point at which we create a moral compass based around what makes us feel good during our time on earth.

This is one of the largest non-sequitors employed by atheists, and they insist on repeating it, and they try to slip it into every conversation about morality. They move from the way it is (survival instinct), to the way it should be (moral compass) without any warrant or logic. This is called the is-ought dilemma, and blind assertion or denial does not solve the dilemma. In addition, this is by extension the naturalistic fallacy.

Murder isn't bad in the majorities eyes because its "wrong", but rather because murder is generally a threat to the survival instinct, and we as mammals have negative responses to things that threaten our existence.

But survival is not a question of right or wrong. He makes a category error here to begin with. In addition, how does this compute with his statement about the moral compass? He also states that we have negative responses, but why are those negative responses right or wrong? If it is just about survival, then there is no right or wrong, because survival is not a value statement or a moral value, it is simply continued existence.

That's why people have a variety of moral compasses. Some people don't view certain things as threats to their survival because of either how they were raised or their environment.

This contradicts what he just said in the previous sentence, and he moves, again without warrant, from survival to environment or social circumstances. Also, if people have a "variety of moral compasses" why are some considered right and others wrong in societies that are genetically the same? How does a "variety of moral compasses" hold selection advantage? Where did it come from in homogenous populations?

"Good" and "bad" are at most just a human-warped view of how we feel in respect to our survival.

This is again just an assertion. There is zero supporting evidence, it is fatally fallacious as demonstrated above, and in addition, there is no meaning for good or bad in the survival context. On what basis does he assert that survival is good, and non-survival isn't? By what standard is survival judged to be "good"? What is the intrinsic moral value of survival? Why does it matter if we are all just bags of carbon and water?

Feeling bad makes survival a pain, so if you cut off the things that feel bad, you're only left with the good and the happy.

Just another irrational assumption...there is no proof that a threat to survival has any moral implications. How do the biochemical processes that he assumes account for "feeling bad", or "feeling good"? And those are anyway not morally relevant statements...morality is about how we ought to behave, not about how we behave.

I have to say that I do agree with him in a lot of points, what say you!?

I think it is a load of unsubstantiated, illogical and irrelevant nonsense.

I actually had an argument about moral standards in which I proved the opponent did not need to acknowledge a moral standard exists in order for there to be a objective moral standard. It went like this.

A. Truth exists INDEPENDENTLY of anyone's knowledge of it

Example: Gravity existed before Newton discovered it.
Also, on that matter. Truth is discovered, not invented. I however want to go ahead and point something else out here. Truth doesn't just exist, it exists regardless if you know about it. Hence, from this point forward even if you don't observe the evidence empirically or get ANY sort of impression of it, the conclusion doesn't care.

B. If truth is INDEPENDENT, it is OBJECTIVE.

Now here is the kicker to eliminate the plurality in truth claims. A truth claim MUST BE true OR false because it MUST FOLLOW a simple law of logic we know as the law of non-contradiction. A truth claim cannot be plural at the same time and same sense. i.e. The dog is barking and not barking at the cat in the tree

C. Moral values and duties REQUIRE propositions.

I am going to elaborate it further. Morals do not simply contain propositions. They REQUIRE propositions. In order to hold a moral value, it must have value in the proposition. Now, you may disagree, but you're very mistaken. Words do have meaning, and they do not require the word to display "immoral" in the dictionary. IF the word "immoral" was in definition of the word, it wouldn't be objective anymore because a human wrote it. You cannot smuggle subjective into objective.

To say that these words do not have value is simply ignorant and disrespectful to the men and women who labored and died for the life we are able to enjoy. Nobody labors for "subjective" value, and nobody would ever put their life on the line for something that was derivative. Thats just asinine. These meaningful values and duties go beyond the words themselves at times. You ever heard the expression, "words don't do it justice"? I doubt when people say that and are deciding if their David Hume impressions had any value yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

D. Moral propositions are truthbearers

Theres no way around this after I explained C. Meaningful Moral values and duties are NOT derivative. Derivatives only apply strictly to numbers manipulations, not vice and virtues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative) As already stated, once it is logically categorized as truth, it is objective and MUST follow the law of non-contradiction.

E. Therefore, Morals values and duties are objective and exist independently of anyone's knowledge.


The skeptic will often continue to claim over and over again that Morals carry no propositional value, but they cannot prove that it does not. Therefore, it is far more probable in explanatory scope and power that an objective moral standard exist, then "subjective" standard or by "chance" standard.

Thank you so much for the replies guys! So, I think I may have debated myself into a corner. I've skipped over a lot of the moral standards arguments onto the character of God. Here it is so far:

Him: If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, as well as being the essence of love, he can keep everything in check while destroying restrictions.
And {Mariolee}, that's what God is though isn't he? The ultimate, perfect Father? There's no reason we shouldn't expect him to parent us. God can destroy all laws of reality and still keep the peace. I mean he's God after all. Why would anything affect him?

God is love. Since when does love murder?

Regardless, the Bible is God's "love letter" to mankind. Interpretations of the society shouldn't change that fact, yet what is so love letter-like about the Old Testament? Or any of the Bible really?
"God created us. We messed up. God banished us. Thousands of years of separation from God's 'physical' form. Jesus comes. Jesus 'saves' us from the sin that God was indirectly responsible for, but only if we worship him." So basically, you choose to worship the same entity that put you in your position because he chooses to "take it back" if you believe in him? I just can't buy into that.

Me: I'm under the concession that God can do anything that makes logical sense. Nowhere that I know of does it say in the Bible that God is omnipotent to the point that He can do illogical stuff, at least things that are logical to Him, but He's still the most powerful. To destroy all laws of reality and still keep the peace doesn't seem like something that's possible, but again this is all theoretical since I can't ever prove this which is why I dislike debating this.

God IS the ultimate Father, but you're trying to judge him on the human standards we have for a good father. We're judging him on the human standards of love. Humans are corrupted, so naturally by extension the fruit of ideas it bears is also corrupted. Right now, we're trying to put God in some sort of box that we can wrap our mind about, and this is going to sound like a stupid way to end a debate, but it's simply not even something we can begin to debate.

Could you elaborate as to why you think the Bible is God's "love letter" to mankind? I have always taken the Bible as "How Man Sees God".

And I agree, when oversimplified like that, it seems like an impossible position to hold, but I think this article will sum up what I think in better ways than I can dictate myself: http://godandscience.org/apologetics/destined.html

Him: The same way you claim I'm judging God on a human standard is what your doing when it comes to the laws of reality, to be fair.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with judging him by human standards. You say that he engineered the universe into existence with precision and perfection so that everything makes some sort of sense, and yet he refuses to do that with himself. He makes himself "incomprehensible" to the human mind. Why not create humans with the capacity to comprehend him? How is it logical to accept qualities about him when you can't even comprehend him?

And I personally don't think it is because it seems to prove itself otherwise. That point only came up because that seems to be the consensus by a lot of believers, so perhaps that's just my limited exposure to Christians expectation of the Bible.

And that article really doesn't change anything for me. It still begs the question, "Is God so stubborn that he'd rather his beloved creation go to hell for the sake of 'freedom' than save them at the cost of their own free-will?" I still stand by what I said. I'd rather be God's righteous puppet than a free and limited human-being.

Me: I have to go, but I'll be thinking about your new points. While I'm gone, you should check out some of the articles from here. I know you don't agree with that one, but maybe they can give you a satisfying answer in some of them: http://godandscience.org/apologetics/cr ... acter.html

Some Other Guy: But maybe God doesn't want people to love him because he forces them to. Maybe he doesn't want 6 billion righteous puppets wandering the earth. Those righteous puppets are angles. God didn't create us to control us, he created us so he can have somebody to love.

Him: Then he's a tad selfish don't ya think? He creates us, then makes it impossible to empirically prove he exists, then says "oh, by the way, the only way to not go to hell is if you love me". Quite the series of events there if you ask me... doesn't sound like someone I would want to follow.
------------------------

What are your thoughts?

Him: If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, as well as being the essence of love, he can keep everything in check while destroying restrictions.
And {Mariolee}, that's what God is though isn't he? The ultimate, perfect Father? There's no reason we shouldn't expect him to parent us. God can destroy all laws of reality and still keep the peace. I mean he's God after all. Why would anything affect him?

God is love. Since when does love murder?

They need to define the terms.
What do you mean by perfect?
What do you mean by love?

Him: Then he's a tad selfish don't ya think? He creates us, then makes it impossible to empirically prove he exists, then says "oh, by the way, the only way to not go to hell is if you love me". Quite the series of events there if you ask me... doesn't sound like someone I would want to follow.

What does he mean by 'empirically prove?' You can't empirically prove a lot of things. Logic, which we use to actually do empirical thinking. Is he going to deny logic? And who is to say that God can't be found empirically? Does His lack of empirical proof set the standard for everyone else?

And I don't think there's anything wrong with judging him by human standards. You say that he engineered the universe into existence with precision and perfection so that everything makes some sort of sense, and yet he refuses to do that with himself. He makes himself "incomprehensible" to the human mind. Why not create humans with the capacity to comprehend him? How is it logical to accept qualities about him when you can't even comprehend him?

here we are talking about the difference of apprehension and comprehension. I can not comprehend all the mathmatical rules, but I can balance a check book. Humans have the capacity to apprehend an understanding of God. The best astro-physicist can not fully comprehend the cosmos. But, they can apprehend a lot regarding certian areas. Does an astro-physicist deny the universe knowing he can't ever fully comprehend the universe? You can stand at the edge of the ocean, but you can not fully comprehend the ocean. We can go on and on.

Mariolee, making statements such as "the bible is God's love letter,' (whether true or not) isn't a debate, and certainly not persuasive to an antagonist.

God's existence has NEVER, EVER been a scientific question. Science can NEVER answer that question, btw.

Does God exist? It has ALWAYS been a philosophical question.

Btw, the epistemologist or skeptic cannot empirically prove that the universe did not begin to exist 5 minutes ago. The purpose of empirical evidence or pure epistemology is to basically destroy all knowledge, and acknowledge their own impressions as truth. Nothing else. Its not honest in any way, shape, or form.

domokunrox wrote:The purpose of empirical evidence or pure epistemology is to basically destroy all knowledge, and acknowledge their own impressions as truth. Nothing else. Its not honest in any way, shape, or form.

What??

Reactionary wrote:

Simply having a standard doesn't prove anything as far as the scheme of the universe goes. We all have survival instincts similar to that of animals; we are simply more "evolved" to the extent that we can get to a level of "higher thinking" in which our survival instincts have been shrouded in the idea of "feeling good". Because of this, we reach the point at which we create a moral compass based around what makes us feel good during our time on earth. Murder isn't bad in the majorities eyes because its "wrong", but rather because murder is generally a threat to the survival instinct, and we as mammals have negative responses to things that threaten our existence. That's why people have a variety of moral compasses. Some people don't view certain things as threats to their survival because of either how they were raised or their environment. "Good" and "bad" are at most just a human-warped view of how we feel in respect to our survival. Feeling bad makes survival a pain, so if you cut off the things that feel bad, you're only left with the good and the happy.

That's just another evolutionist "cool" story that attempts to reduce humans to mere chemicals. Someone once said that if one started to believe that he descended from apes, he will start acting like an ape. It may be difficult to improve, but of course it's far easier to degrade yourself and start behaving like an animal - using viciously circular reasoning to justify that behaviour. While animals obey their instincts, humans reason, which explains why we are capable of grasping the immaterial, such as concepts, ideas, logic, or morality. Since we know (empirically) that it works, it means we accurately perceive the world around us and make decisions based on rationality, not on some genes that randomly assembled themselves. Sure, we do have instincts that cause certain desires within us, but ultimately we decide whether to act upon them or not. The fact that some people can't, or don't want to resist their inner urges, is not my problem.

There are moral laws and codes that have been around since the beginning, but guess what - some people obey them, some do not. It brings us back to decision making. If we human "mammals" indeed saw murder as something threatening to our survival, it would be universially rejected, and there wouldn't be any murder. However, some use their free choice to act against the moral law and kill someone. Most of us would condemn that act, but some (moral relativists) would say that murder is neither wrong nor right. So what does that mean - moral relativists don't have that gene installed?? Evolutionists easily forget that whatever applies to humanity, applies to them as well, so if we're preconditioned to believe in God, then they are likewise preconditioned to believe in atheism. Besides, condemning dangerous acts has nothing to do with the survival of mankind as a whole. How would you then justify millions of abortions worldwide? Many seem to be fine with it, why? Because we were born, nobody's going to abort us! However, someone may murder us, so suddenly, the life of a human adult seems to have value. Selfishness at its best, however as you can see, it has very little to do with the survival of our species.

By the way, since I mentioned the topic of abortion, really, why does it happen, from an evolutionary point of view? Since it seems that the meaning of our life is to reproduce, why prevent that process? Some evolutionists say that the purpose of male-female relationships is solely to reproduce, so why do people use birth control? Why are some singles happier than some other people, who happen to have children? Why do we appreciate collections of sound waves or electromagnetic waves that we call works of art? How does a collection of randomly assembled chemicals come to the conclusion that it's a collection of randomly assembled chemicals?? So many questions unanswered, obviously because the entire Social Darwinist theory (or whatever euphemism they invented for it these days) is a failure.

Reactionary, I seriously wish you and I lived in the same town. We'd be the bestest of friends You think like me WONDERFUL post. Truly.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:Reactionary, I seriously wish you and I lived in the same town. We'd be the bestest of friends You think like me WONDERFUL post. Truly.

I'm glad that we share opinions even though we live on different continents. Thanks for positive feedback.

Reactionary wrote:

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:Reactionary, I seriously wish you and I lived in the same town. We'd be the bestest of friends You think like me WONDERFUL post. Truly.

I'm glad that we share opinions even though we live on different continents. Thanks for positive feedback.

My pleasure friend, my pleasure!