mnealtx 0 #51 January 6, 2012 QuoteWithout the Bible anything goes, like all the wild eyed musings from smoking dope.... Not so - look at Buddhists. Religion is *an* answer, it's not the *only* answer.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #52 January 6, 2012 QuoteWhy does there have to be a point where it came into being? I AM, baby... I AM...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #53 January 6, 2012 QuoteMy reasoning is if we are all here by chance then we are just chemical reactions and nothing we do is right or wrong. Right or wrong relative to what? From a mechanistic (i.e. evolutionary) point of view, behaviors that increase the chances of successful reproduction (not only producing offspring, but having those offspring survive to also successfully reproduce) will be favored. For us humans, our extended childhood means we have to survive for a long time to even get to reproductive age, and then we have to survive for many more years to rear our children to the point where they are self sufficient. An excessively violent nature would result in a lifespan that is too short for successful reproduction for most individuals. On the other hand, being so passive as to fail to defend oneself is also not a viable strategy. Our basic nature, which is to cooperate with one another to a point but resort to violence in self defense or sometimes to capture needed resources, is easily explained as being optimal in the sense that it maximizes the probability of successful reproduction for most individuals. This also accounts for our ability to live in social groups where we can work collaboratively towards harvesting resources, child rearing, and defense. Social behavior over long lifespans selects for the ability to communicate (language) as well as the ability to form alliances leading to dominance within the social group. The need for parental care of children for an unusually long time (far more than any other animal species) also selects for males that stick around and help care for the family, which accounts for pair-bonding behaviors that enhance mate bonding, at least for long enough to get children to the point where they are somewhat self sufficient. Other species, with different life histories, have different optimal behaviors. QuoteI think absolute morality comes from an unchanging perfect entity .Perhaps, but that isn't a testable proposition one way or the other. The "absolute morality" you speak of is really very limited: work together when it's to your advantage, don't fight/kill unless there is something to be gained that is worth risking your life for, do your best to provide for your family. Nothing about this can't be explained by simple survival of the fittest. That doesn't mean there is no God, it just means that since there is a logical natural explanation for "human nature" or "morality" you can't point to that as proof that God must exist. For that to be the case, you would have to show that there is some aspect of human nature that is invariably expressed by every individual, and that works contrary to reproductive success (=fitness in the biological sense). Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrmnlViscocity 0 #54 January 6, 2012 God would define any absolutes. Also the context of what your reading is important. The Bible makes it clear that being a slave or slave master the focus is still God and loving your neighbor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #55 January 6, 2012 >Where does that universal moral come from. It can't come from us because we are imperfect . . .. . . . and thus our morality is imperfect. There have been times where being moral meant killing all the Arabs. There have been times when slavery was acceptable morally, where women were considered property and where no one could see anything wrong with killing all the whales we could find. If our morality came from a fixed unchanging source none of that would be true. We'd have one set of morals and that would be it. But since they arise from our own inherent sense of right and wrong - and since that sense changes with the times based on what's possible, convenient and sensible - those morals change with us. >But there is a universal right and wrong out there. Is it right to own slaves? Is it right to deny blacks and whites the right to marry? Is it right to deny gays the right to marry? Is it right to deny women the vote? Is it right to kill as many Arabs as you can because their religion is different than yours? Is it right to kill as many Germans as you can because their leader is different than yours? There are no universal rights and wrongs. Fortunately, for the most part, we tend towards more rights for more people rather than fewer. I hope that direction continues - even if it argues against there being one "universal" right and wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #56 January 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteWithout the Bible anything goes, like all the wild eyed musings from smoking dope.... Not so - look at Buddhists. Religion is *an* answer, it's not the *only* answer. Buddhists? We're talking about christian apologetics. I think it's ridiculous to explain christianity without the bible...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #57 January 6, 2012 QuoteLet's all agree to disagree. No. You said the cosmological evidence was stacked towards a creator, you haven't remotely shown that to be the case, you're wrong. QuoteBut there is a universal right and wrong out there. Where does that universal moral come from. Hold up there dude, you've skipped a pretty important step: is there universal right and wrong? What is it?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #58 January 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteWithout the Bible anything goes, like all the wild eyed musings from smoking dope.... Not so - look at Buddhists. Religion is *an* answer, it's not the *only* answer. Buddhists? We're talking about christian apologetics. I think it's ridiculous to explain christianity without the bible... OK. As far as christian apologetic are concerned, it's ridiculous to claim that without the bible, anything goes. Just look at the Buddhists. Or the early Greek philosophers. The existence and/or nature of 'The Good' was a pretty hot topic 400+ years before Jesus.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #59 January 6, 2012 Quote Where does that universal moral come from. It can't come from us because we are imperfect therfore we cannot agree to know what is perfect truth Let's start there and I'll give examples in a bit Now you just seem to be making stuff up ... why on Earth would you even think that there is a Universal Morality? Morality, as far as I can tell is a Human concept. I can see no external evidence - but if you can then please feel free to share..... (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #60 January 6, 2012 Hey coreece. I agree. I love the bible but if people in here don't believe in it, it's hard to prove your point by quoting it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #61 January 6, 2012 See post #35. We agree that there is a nothing. A vacuum. That matter exists is a proof. Explain the existence of matter from that nothing. Unexplainable. That's about as far as anyone can go. To quantify the unquantifiable ends any further discussion. The debate then shifts to the qualities and attributes imagined that the unexplainable entity has been anointed with by the debaters. Human intellectual speculation. All that is left after that is faith, and the 7000+ years old discussion that surrounds it. The debate has shifted, as you correctly point out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #62 January 6, 2012 I see your point, buy you're still putting a value on reaching an age to have children and putting a value on the children. If we are all molecules in motion we still wouldn't care about that. I believe without there being God. Ultimately life has no meaning. If there are universal truths like it's wrong to rape and that's true for ALL peole ALL the time that goes beyond relative truths like cannibals who think it's ok to eat people one culture is ok with a set of morals another is repulsed by the same set. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #63 January 6, 2012 QuoteThat matter exists is a proof. Of? QuoteExplain the existence of matter from that nothing. Unexplainable. That's about as far as anyone can go. To quantify the unquantifiable ends any further discussion. The debate then shifts to the qualities and attributes imagined that the unexplainable entity has been anointed with by the debaters. No it doesn't. You've just leaped straight from "I don't know how it happened" to "There must be an entity that did it" You can't just gloss over that step and expect people not to notice.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #64 January 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteThat matter exists is a proof. Of? QuoteExplain the existence of matter from that nothing. Unexplainable. That's about as far as anyone can go. To quantify the unquantifiable ends any further discussion. The debate then shifts to the qualities and attributes imagined that the unexplainable entity has been anointed with by the debaters. No it doesn't. You've just leaped straight from "I don't know how it happened" to "There must be an entity that did it" You can't just gloss over that step and expect people not to notice. Nope..... Did not. Read it again. I left the question open. I did not say there was an entity. I said all the was left was faith. That's all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #65 January 6, 2012 QuoteI see your point, buy you're still putting a value on reaching an age to have children and putting a value on the children. If we are all molecules in motion we still wouldn't care about that. Read The Selfish Gene. If we are all just molecules in motion, that would be the biggest thing we care about. And hey look, it pretty much is. QuoteIf there are universal truths like it's wrong to rape and that's true for ALL peole ALL the time that goes beyond relative truths like cannibals who think it's ok to eat people one culture is ok with a set of morals another is repulsed by the same set. If cannibalism is only a relative truth because some people think it's ok then rape is also a relative truth. Many, many, many people think it's ok to rape.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #66 January 6, 2012 Even though we shifted to a moral argument the reason I abandoned this one is there are No Perfect vacuums not even space is a perfect vacuum. Therefore matter was there all along then they say look we created something out of nothing. It is not even close to an accurate experiment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #67 January 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThat matter exists is a proof. Of? QuoteExplain the existence of matter from that nothing. Unexplainable. That's about as far as anyone can go. To quantify the unquantifiable ends any further discussion. The debate then shifts to the qualities and attributes imagined that the unexplainable entity has been anointed with by the debaters. No it doesn't. You've just leaped straight from "I don't know how it happened" to "There must be an entity that did it" You can't just gloss over that step and expect people not to notice. Nope..... Did not. Read it again. I left the question open. I did not say there was an entity. I said all the was left was faith. That's all. Did too. You left open the question of its attributes. That question assumes its existence. (Unless 'not existing' is an attribute.)Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #68 January 6, 2012 QuoteEven though we shifted to a moral argument the reason I abandoned this one is there are No Perfect vacuums not even space is a perfect vacuum. Therefore matter was there all along then they say look we created something out of nothing. It is not even close to an accurate experiment. Exactly....... It's unexplainable. I disagree that matter was there all along. Look past the definable and measurable. The explainable. From nothing to something? We'll never know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #69 January 6, 2012 QuoteHow do you define an absolute morality? I think the Golden Rule is almost universal. "Threat others like you want to be treated" Others can mean anything from all of humanity, to a small group of people you belong to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #70 January 6, 2012 Your right what I meant to say is that people who think cannibalism is ok is a relative truth but it's universally wrong same with rape your right some people think it's ok but that doesn't mean it is. Absolute truth is that it's wrong. Remember not believing in the truth doesn't make it not true. If you don't believe in gravity you wont float away. It's true weather you believe it or not Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,146 #71 January 6, 2012 We are all molecules in motion. Are our wishes and desires more God-driven than those more mechanistic wishes and desires ("enough food," "sex/procreation," etc) of the animals that we consider to be lower on the chain? Do their lives have purpose, or does it just revolve around ours? What would be the impact to our understanding of God to find out that whales and/or dolphins are, in fact, capable of spiritual lives, just ones that are so different that we have no concept whatsoever of them? As long as we define our spirituality/God around ourselves, then it's hard to argue that the intellectual structures built around them are anything but our own creation. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #72 January 6, 2012 QuoteYour right what I meant to say is that people who think cannibalism is ok is a relative truth but it's universally wrong same Might want to pay more attention to what you're writing then. It's hard to follow your argument when you're saying the exact opposite of what you mean. QuoteAbsolute truth is that it's wrong. Says who? How do you know? QuoteRemember not believing in the truth doesn't make it not true. How do you know it's true? Remember, believing in it doesn't make it true. QuoteIf you don't believe in gravity you wont float away. I can test gravity. I'm testing it right now... nope, not floated away yet! How can I test absolute moral truth?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #73 January 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat matter exists is a proof. Of? QuoteExplain the existence of matter from that nothing. Unexplainable. That's about as far as anyone can go. To quantify the unquantifiable ends any further discussion. The debate then shifts to the qualities and attributes imagined that the unexplainable entity has been anointed with by the debaters. No it doesn't. You've just leaped straight from "I don't know how it happened" to "There must be an entity that did it" You can't just gloss over that step and expect people not to notice. Nope..... Did not. Read it again. I left the question open. I did not say there was an entity. I said all the was left was faith. That's all. Did too. You left open the question of its attributes. That question assumes its existence. (Unless 'not existing' is an attribute.) No, no and no.......Again..... you are wrong... I'm did not assign anything, anywhere. Attributes, powers, abilities and so forth of an entity come from the imagination and human speculation of the debaters. I did not, nor do I now enter that debate. All I say is that it is unexplainable how anything can come from nothing. Physics says it is an impossibility. I define nothing else, nor do I defend anything else. Re-read what I wrote if you wish to debate me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #74 January 6, 2012 Quote No, no and no.......Again..... you are wrong... I'm did not assign anything, anywhere. I didn't say you assigned any attributes, I said you assumed its existence. Read what I wrote if you wish to debate me, otherwise you'll just keep being wrong. Quote Re-read what I wrote if you wish to debate me. What you wrote; "Any further debate boils down to a discussion of what powers the debaters accede to as belonging to a deity or their version of a deity. To simply throw out that there is "nothing" is denied by the physical fact that matter does exist." Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #75 January 6, 2012 Well exuse me but I'm a fireman and at work for 24 hrs and got about 2 hrs sleep last night so feel free to disregard anything I write for fear I may make mistakes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
