you know for evolution to actually happen it would be like a tornado going through a junkyard and assembeling a fully operational 747 airplane now that sounds real logical doesn't.

Uhhh, have you ever had a science class? I mean I'm not even sure how to respond to this. Evolution is not in question any more, there is more than enough data to support it as a successfull theory. What work that is going on is refining the theory not questioning whether or not it is valid.

Yeah, I wish I could have come back to this earlier. * Disclaimer: This is a response assuming the existence of God, and the Christian God in particular. While it answers the question asked so long ago by Epicurius, it does not provide a proof for God's existence.*
In response to the "horns" dilemma, I would say that neither choice is accurate. There is not an objective right/wrong apart from God, but neither is it His decision of what is moral - morality, good/evil, etc. stem from the very nature of God, that is, what is good is that which is consistent with God's own character, and thus neither caprice on the part of God or a law followed by God.

Now, itemized again...This is in order of your posts from the time I posted last.

Petter: Ok, so if morality is evolved culturally, then there is nothing inherently wrong with transgessing said morality other than cultural condemnation/punishment if I get caught? Hypothetically, if I wanted to rape and murder, it is not inherently wrong, only wrong because of cultural mores? And, then, if someone chose to reject those cultural mores, and do so, it would be acceptable to punish him/her in that culture for transgessing, but one could not say that they were "wrong" for doing so, yes?
The perfection ontological argument takes the fact that anything we can imagine has to have a reference point in reality, somewhere. That, coupled with the idea that perfection can be conceived even though it is never experienced (because you cannot conceive of an idea merely from its lack), would argue that SOMETHING perfect must exist. It doesn't prove what that is, whether it is God, or some impersonal force, but it is a starting point for a further series of arguments for monotheism and Christianity (perfection divided and consistency)
Positing an eternal universe contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics (or is it the Third?), which is why I don't accept that. Positing an eternal creator outside of the universe does not, though, admittedly it is experimentally unverifiable.
And, finally, the Big Bang Theory has produced testable predictions, and empirical evidence, yes. The original theory is untestable, and empirical evidence only nails shut the coffin if you come to the argument with the presupposition that the physical universie is all that exists. We come here with different starting assumptions, and neither of us can conclusively prove or disprove the other, so we are not likely to find common ground on this.

Gypsy Jazz: Thats what I was wondering. You say that the only meaning our lives can have is subjective. Two questions: If that is so, why should I care about the value of any other person's life? And, What prevents one from sinking into despondency upon the rational realization that nothing they ever do or say matters objectively, and that ultimately they waste their life (unless, of course they admittedly live for pure hedonism, and care only for their own pleasure, but I think anyone who claims that is not being entirely truthful).

Virus: See above about the horns dilemma

Mecrk: Petter does point out the problem with good/evil being separate from God.

Petter again: you are misinterpreting the Christian Scripture a little bit here. When man became "as God" in Genesis, it was the concept of discerning right from wrong. Prior to this, in Christian belief, man did not have the ability or knowledge to transgress God's moral law. After this action, man had the free choice to obey or disobey the moral law, and he knew the difference - as God knew the difference. Where "what God commands is a good thing," this is a reference to the idea of the sovereign will of God, that is, He has an ultimate plan, too great in scope for us to fully comprehend, and, on occassion, what we think is a bad idea but do out of obedience to God results in the best possible solution (best in the sense of fulfilling the plan).

Virus: asking if God could make rape a moral act - He is able, however, to do so would contravene His own character, and were He to do so, He would not be God. So yes and no - it's not really a clear answer, but if you look at morality as coming from the nature of God rather than whim, or objective law, it makes more sense. Again, this is a Christian-specific answer.

Gypsy Jazz again: If moral law is inherent in the fabric of the universe, where did it come from? The same place the universe did? You have combined two questions, so that now we have either "I don't know" or "a moral creator" as the source.

M1k3: Yes, it is a belief system (just like anything else that is not proven fact), yes God would have to exist outside of the universe, and yes that fact is unverifiable....so what personal beliefs do you have in which ALL of the assertions are testable and verifiable (and I mean directly, evidence that has taken an unproven presupposition and gotten experimental results based on that)?

seriousmantid: Thanks, I didn't think I was talking about nothing, though...or that I always talk so much about nothing....lol

Vince: uhh, I'm not so sure of the passage you are talking about, so i can't really address it without some more help from you. If morality changes, then either it is not derived from God and God is unneccessary, or God is inconstant, therefore imperfect, and thus not God. It's kinda hard to be a theist without accepting moral absolutes.

Thaiboxerken: yes, post-death consciousness was a presupposition of seriousmantid's statement, but, equally the absence of post-death consciousness is a presupposition of yours. Neither statement is verifiable at all, so we can't use that as a platform for discussion, and we can't really debate it. So really, neither of you contributed anything, because it amounts to an "Is not - is too" argument. Lets stick to things we can actually debate, and not attack each other, shall we? I'm not trying to be mean, and I welcome your input in the discussion wholeheartedly, there are just some rabbit trails that I think both sides will agree are pointless to follow, because they lead nowhere.


Oh, and is anyone going to bite on my moral reformer question?

Uhhh, have you ever had a science class? I mean I'm not even sure how to respond to this. Evolution is not in question any more, there is more than enough data to support it as a successfull theory. What work that is going on is refining the theory not questioning whether or not it is valid.
Whoa, put on the brakes here - I'd love to see some reputable evidence, or even sources asserting that fact. There are several prominent scientists (not theists and not ID guys, either) that question its validity. One that comes to mind is.....crap, I forget his name, the Australian Microbiologist, wrote a book about it a few years back...someone help me out here...I think it might have been Dan something...I'll look for the book (we just moved, so it's on the floor, somewhere...).
Anyway, I can debate evolution's validity, but we may need a new thread for that.

``Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable.'' - Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionist

Well if God is the truth in the end you will meet him. If God isn't real then there will be no consciousness, thus, we will find out either way. So why argue about something that noone can prove until they die, believe what you want and in the end you'll get the answer. If people believe most of them are more caring than they would have been before they believed so what is the harm in that. Also if you don't believe that is your choice no need to debate what you can't prove anyways. Everyone is making assumptions with no facts, you know for evolution to actually happen it would be like a tornado going through a junkyard and assembeling a fully operational 747 airplane now that sounds real logical doesn't. I'm just saying let people believe what they may, it is their choice.


Evolution has been supported by an incredible amount of evidence. If you'd like to learn about evolution here is a nice video from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html Also, who the **** isn't letting people believe what they may? We are debating, not making atheism/christianity/religion a law, brainwashing, or threatening theists/atheists. You aren't adding anything to this thread.

for evolution to actually happen it would be like a tornado going through a junkyard and assembeling a fully operational 747 airplane now that sounds real logical doesn't.
Have you ever read anything about evolution outside of John Q. Creationist's Pseudo-Scientific Guide To Why Scientists Are Wrong?


Ok, so if morality is evolved culturally, then there is nothing inherently wrong with transgessing said morality other than cultural condemnation/punishment if I get caught? Hypothetically, if I wanted to rape and murder, it is not inherently wrong, only wrong because of cultural mores? And, then, if someone chose to reject those cultural mores, and do so, it would be acceptable to punish him/her in that culture for transgessing, but one could not say that they were "wrong" for doing so, yes?
Sure we could. If you do something that is wrong according to my moral standards -- rape, murder, what have you -- then you are absolutely wrong to do so -- in my perspective. From your point of view, it may not be so, and it's certainly true that there are many and conflicting world views. However, I don't buy for a moment the relativist idea that all world views are themselves equally good (it's a nonsensical argument to begin with, because it implicitly states that non-relativist viewpoints are inferior).

But 'inherently wrong' -- I suppose not. So what?


The perfection ontological argument takes the fact that anything we can imagine has to have a reference point in reality, somewhere.
It does? Can you cite the evidence for this assertion?

(I'll leave out the rest of your argument until you can lend some weight to this premise.)


Positing an eternal universe contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics (or is it the Third?), which is why I don't accept that. Positing an eternal creator outside of the universe does not, though, admittedly it is experimentally unverifiable.

[quote]And, finally, the Big Bang Theory has produced testable predictions, and empirical evidence, yes. The original theory is untestable...
Of course it isn't! A proposition is testable if, only if, precisely if, it can be used to generate predictions that can subsequently be falsified (if the proposition is false) or verified (if it is true). This is what it means for a proposition (or set of propositions) to be testable (and a theory is a set of propositions that have been successfully tested many, many times).


...and empirical evidence only nails shut the coffin if you come to the argument with the presupposition that the physical universie is all that exists. We come here with different starting assumptions, and neither of us can conclusively prove or disprove the other, so we are not likely to find common ground on this.
I come with the 'presupposition' that we can only know of that which we can observe to exist. If you show me evidence for fairies, or deities, and the evidence is strong enough, my conclusion may match yours.



You say that the only meaning our lives can have is subjective. Two questions: If that is so, why should I care about the value of any other person's life?
Because you should recognise that the situation is identical viewed from the other side, and that co-operation, improving both your happiness and that of the other, is only truly possible with mutual respect. Also because there's no need to be a dick. What, in Gypsy Jazz's arguments or in mine, supports the notion that any one person is inherently superior to, or somehow morally worth more, than any other?


And, What prevents one from sinking into despondency upon the rational realization that nothing they ever do or say matters objectively, and that ultimately they waste their life (unless, of course they admittedly live for pure hedonism, and care only for their own pleasure, but I think anyone who claims that is not being entirely truthful).
Why would one sink into despondency? None of us seem to have done so. Why should we be so fixated on some putative 'objective meaning' of our lives? Yes, live for the moment, and for your own happiness; including happiness you gain vicariously by seeing others happy, or making others happy.


Petter again: you are misinterpreting the Christian Scripture a little bit here. When man became "as God" in Genesis, it was the concept of discerning right from wrong. Prior to this, in Christian belief, man did not have the ability or knowledge to transgress God's moral law.
I know, and I find this hilarious, because Christian dogma teaches that Adam and Eve were punished for wrong-doing when they were fundamentally incapable of understanding that they were doing wrong. The idea that 'sin' and culpability are inherited is equally ridiculous but not hilarious, but monstrous and oppressive.


Where "what God commands is a good thing," this is a reference to the idea of the sovereign will of God, that is, He has an ultimate plan, too great in scope for us to fully comprehend, and, on occassion, what we think is a bad idea but do out of obedience to God results in the best possible solution (best in the sense of fulfilling the plan).
I'm sorry, but I will never agree that a genocidal war campaign wherein you slaughter every man, woman, and child you come across, dashing the brains of infants out on the rocks, is a moral thing, no matter what god commands it.


Gypsy Jazz again: If moral law is inherent in the fabric of the universe, where did it come from? The same place the universe did? You have combined two questions, so that now we have either "I don't know" or "a moral creator" as the source.
Didn't he say that this was what his dad believed, rather than himself?


Oh, and is anyone going to bite on my moral reformer question?
I must have missed that one. What was it?


Whoa, put on the brakes here - I'd love to see some reputable evidence, or even sources asserting that fact. There are several prominent scientists (not theists and not ID guys, either) that question its validity. One that comes to mind is.....crap, I forget his name, the Australian Microbiologist, wrote a book about it a few years back...someone help me out here...I think it might have been Dan something...I'll look for the book...
That's a very credible counter-argument to a spectacularly successful theory that virtually every biologist subscribes to in spite of powerful, culturally ingrained dogmas that they must shed to do so.

The only famous biologist I'm aware of who subscribes to ID or anything of that slimy sort is Michael Behe, and we should all know what a train wreck that guy is.

Wait, Dan Something isn't a reputable scientist? He's done amazing work!

Petter: Ok, so if morality is evolved culturally, then there is nothing inherently wrong with transgessing said morality other than cultural condemnation/punishment if I get caught? Hypothetically, if I wanted to rape and murder, it is not inherently wrong, only wrong because of cultural mores?

Positing an eternal universe contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics (or is it the Third?), which is why I don't accept that. Positing an eternal creator outside of the universe does not, though, admittedly it is experimentally unverifiable.

And, finally, the Big Bang Theory has produced testable predictions, and empirical evidence, yes. The original theory is untestable, and empirical evidence only nails shut the coffin if you come to the argument with the presupposition that the physical universie is all that exists. We come here with different starting assumptions, and neither of us can conclusively prove or disprove the other, so we are not likely to find common ground on this.

Gypsy Jazz: Thats what I was wondering. You say that the only meaning our lives can have is subjective. Two questions: If that is so, why should I care about the value of any other person's life? And, What prevents one from sinking into despondency upon the rational realization that nothing they ever do or say matters objectively, and that ultimately they waste their life (unless, of course they admittedly live for pure hedonism, and care only for their own pleasure, but I think anyone who claims that is not being entirely truthful).

Gypsy Jazz again: If moral law is inherent in the fabric of the universe, where did it come from? The same place the universe did? You have combined two questions, so that now we have either "I don't know" or "a moral creator" as the source.

Oh, and is anyone going to bite on my moral reformer question?

You tempt me to answer questions posed to others. I enjoy this polite, psuedo rational discourse. I will try not to flush out my answers of questions addressed to others, but I have a hard time keeping to myself in an open discussion. I am also a master at rambling.

Lack of objective morals does not make everything permissable. Some atheists may claim to be moral for fear of being put in jail, but some theists claim to be moral for fear of hell. At least you can get out of jail, even if only by death. I feel a bit on loop here: morality has evolved both biologically and socially as a nessecity for survival. Realizing such means we can break free from it if we choose, but it is illogical to do so due to the golden rule and guided by our empathy.

I'm not a physics or math person so I won't even try to deal with thermodynamics. However, positing the supernatural due to no other means of explanation of the formation of the universe is the same god of the gaps style argument that once was used for evolution, the motion of the planets, etc.

Taking on two points here (out of order) supposing there is anything beyond the physical universe and anything beyond life is a silly assumption if you care to think empirically. We know that the universe exists (short of solipsism and simulation arguments). We know we are alive. There is no evidence of either the soul or the non-physical. You work with what you know, and any extra steps are stripped away by Occam's razor. To posit something based on ignorance or maybe yield no actual results outside the realm of chance. Why suppose a soul? Both would explain nothing, but leave many more questions, and neither has any evidence of being true. Keep in mind that such weighty claims would need a tremendous body of evidence to be true. To claim I have a cat requires little evidence. To claim I have a dragon would be a whole other story.

Oh boy the questions addressed to me! Why care about others? We find ourselves back at the golden rule again. I can write a lot about this, much about evolutionary theory, but that doesn't seem so much the very heart of the issue. I value the lives of others because I realize my own potential for happiness and wish others to experience the same. I would like this favor returned to me most of the time, though I don't demand it. I can easily imagine myself in the place of others, and therefore will sometimes do deeds with no reciprication expected. Death is as close to the concept of nothingness I have, and while people are alive I'd very much like them to have as much freedom to explore the world for their brief stay, because that is what I want.

Your second question almost doesn't compute with me. Of course nothing we do objectively matters. Is it selfish to pursue happiness amongst all this? In one form or another, isn't all philosophy boiled down to its essance a quest for happiness/satisfaction? This begs the question of what happiness is, which I am not touching in this thread.

Of course you can find nihilism in this, but I think it's rather silly to. I linked to a former post of mine on the intrisic value of life a few posts back. We are here, and to the best of our ability we are sure of this. We have no idea what death might hold (though I suspect nothing) so why not act on what we do know and try to find some form of happiness in our certainty? If it is impossible for you to find joy, or if suffering outweighs happiness, then I think suicide is a reasonable option.

I find it particularly saddening to think that the only reason a person could be happy is because they are pleasing some deity. I don't think that's how most theists actually live though, but it comes off in the argument as such.

As for the latter point I won't defend this one too much because I don't actually believe it, nor do I think it's a terribly good point. I assume the moral laws would be in place just as the physical laws are. They're just part of the universe and have always been there as long as the universe has. Do physical laws need a law giver? This is a whole other topic, mostly cosmology based. As quick as I can some alternatives to the law giver are: multiple universes, the current laws are the only possibilty and we are simply recognizing them, physical laws don't exist in the way we think and we just seeking patterns to better understand the cosmos.

For some reason when responding to you, I always have to go. It must be Thor.

Methinks thou needest to read thine Old Testament better...can't remember the exact book and chapter, but I do recall one of the Tribes of Israel kidnapping a bunch of women from another country.
Also the Midianites. After Moses defeated them in battle, and had his army kill all the men, they brought the women and children to him. He was pissed, and told them to kill the male children and any woman who had touched a man. Then he told them to keep the virgin women for themselves. And this wasn't Moses acting alone: he was relaying God's word.

The war with the Midianites was justified by the "seduction" of several Israelite men by Midianite women. So, yeah. There's a good justification for genocide and mass-rape. It's Numbers, chapter 31, if you're interested.

Well if God is the truth in the end you will meet him.

That is a very huge "if" since there is absolutely no empirical evidence, scientific evidence or even a valid logical reason to suppose that any god exists, let alone yours.



If God isn't real then there will be no consciousness, thus, we will find out either way.

No consciousness means that there is no knowledge, feeling or anything. Nonexistence nullifies "finding out."



So why argue about something that noone can prove until they die, believe what you want and in the end you'll get the answer.

Proving has nothing to do with it, evidence and logic does. The belief that a god exists has no foundation in reason at all.



If people believe most of them are more caring than they would have been before they believed so what is the harm in that.

It's not very harmful to believe in a god that lead people to have peaceful lives. Unfortunately, in the real world, believers in god seem to worship gods that hate believers of other gods.



Also if you don't believe that is your choice no need to debate what you can't prove anyways.

Problem is that non-believers are making no claims. We're simply skeptical of the claim "my god exists." The burden of evidence is on the believers. Also, choice has nothing to do with this. I have no choice but to not believe in any gods because there is no evidence or logic to support the claim. If you think belief is a choice you aren't thinking straight. I can no more choose to believe a god exists than I can believe that GW Bush is a great president.



Everyone is making assumptions with no facts, you know for evolution to actually happen it would be like a tornado going through a junkyard and assembeling a fully operational 747 airplane now that sounds real logical doesn't. I'm just saying let people believe what they may, it is their choice.

It's a fact that evolution has happened and is happening. There are a multitude of facts, evidence and reason behind this fact. You should educate yourself. WTF does evolution have to do with your belief in a god anyway? Letting people to believe what they may isn't always the best choice. I don't advocate violence to change people's minds. Education is the only real way to defeat the ignorant plague that infests the human population, the plague of religion.

Whoa, put on the brakes here - I'd love to see some reputable evidence, or even sources asserting that fact.

Talkorigins.org

Evolution is both fact and theory. It is a fact that it has happened and is still happening. The "theory" of evolution is the current explanation as to mechanics of it all. In the world of science, evolution is like gravity. No reputable scientist questions the existence of gravity or evolution.

Talkorigins.org

Evolution is both fact and theory. It is a fact that it has happened and is still happening. The "theory" of evolution is the current explanation as to mechanics of it all. In the world of science, evolution is like gravity. No reputable scientist questions the existence of gravity or evolution.

Back for just a tick.

Even if evolution was proven to be full of holes or false, that doesn't mean the default position is "God did it". I think too often people (theists in particular) hold the position that if it can't be explained in scientific/logical terms then it defaults to the supernatural. Evolution uncontested among legitimate biologists, and is the cornerstone for a large part of modern medicine. Any objections are on relgious grounds (Behe). Also worth noting is that if there were something evolutionary theory cannot explain it doesn't invalidate evolution completely. Scientific theories either adapt or are discarded, something I can't say holds true about dogma of any sort.

Thaiboxerken is basically correct about that. Even when the creationists were trying to put together their big list of scientists who supposedly "doubted" evolution, they: 1) Found remarkably few, 2) Had to resort to a misleading prompt, 3) Got very few scientists with relevant expertise (lots of engineers, almost no biologists), 4) Deliberately misrepresented the academic affiliations and qualifications of certain signatories (many were people who had never actually worked as scientists), 5) Had several signatories who have since expressed their total disagreement with the document. Here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_from_Darwinism

Whoa, put on the brakes here - I'd love to see some reputable evidence, or even sources asserting that fact. There are several prominent scientists (not theists and not ID guys, either) that question its validity. One that comes to mind is.....crap, I forget his name, the Australian Microbiologist, wrote a book about it a few years back...someone help me out here...I think it might have been Dan something...I'll look for the book (we just moved, so it's on the floor, somewhere...).
Anyway, I can debate evolution's validity, but we may need a new thread for that.

``Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable.'' - Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionist



Existence of vestigial organs.
Similarity of embryonic form amongst vertebrae shows single line of decent.
Homologous features indicate divergent evolution of species.
Analogous features indicate convergent evolution.
Conserved sequences of genetic code.
Comparative amino acid sequences.
Mitochondrial DNA.
The fossil record.

Existence of vestigial organs.
Similarity of embryonic form amongst vertebrates shows single line of decent.
Homologous features indicate divergent evolution of species.
Analogous features indicate convergent evolution.
Conserved sequences of genetic code.
Comparative amino acid sequences.
Mitochondrial DNA.
The fossil record.

Observable evolution in microorganisms with sufficiently high mutation rates and short generation gaps for evolution to occur in human-observable time scales, c.f. antibacterial resistance (yes, evolutionary biology is critical in modern medicine)

Existence of vestigial organs.

Let's just think about this one for a second. Several species of whale have defined pelvises and hipbones. You know, for the legs they don't have. Evolution is the ONLY explanation that can make sense of this. I don't understand how this is not immediately a game-ending argument against intelligent design: there is NO REASON to give animals that DON'T HAVE LEGS hip bones and pelvises. There is, of course, every reason for them to evolve that way--their ancestors did have legs, therefore they have vestigial hipbones.

Sometimes whales are born with tiny, useless legs attached to their tiny, useless hipbones.

Let's just think about this one for a second. Several species of whale have defined pelvises and hipbones. You know, for the legs they don't have. Evolution is the ONLY explanation that can make sense of this. I don't understand how this is not immediately a game-ending argument against intelligent design: there is NO REASON to give animals that DON'T HAVE LEGS hip bones and pelvises. There is, of course, every reason for them to evolve that way--their ancestors did have legs, therefore they have vestigial hipbones.

Sometimes whales are born with tiny, useless legs attached to their tiny, useless hipbones.

You know what he'll do? He'll go to some gay website, written by some dude with a mail-order PhD and find something like:

"Oh. It's not really vestigial. It has a function. It's a buoyancy device. It helps the whale float."

I just made that **** up. Anyone can be a creationist.

Hmmm, sorry who are the people that actually have an impact on human knowledge? Creationists or scientists? Ah, that's right. Scientists.

Evolutionists = the fail.