Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debate on 5 Non-Biblical arguments for the existence of God
jalajo
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 49 (147367)
10-05-2004 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Amlodhi
10-02-2004 5:41 PM


Re: Arguments
Dear Amlodhi,
I don't have a lot of time so I'll make this quick for now:
You said:
"And, as such, if this "sense of morality" was imbued by God, every person and/or culture would define it in the same way. But, that isn't what we observe."
Not talking about different standards or morals in cultures, where does a sense of morality at all come from then? We don't see it in the animal kingdom. Its all instinct there, was a sense of morality formed when we evolved? (also you could substitute a will and intellect in for sense of morality, and i would still have the same question about it, but that is for another time!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Amlodhi, posted 10-02-2004 5:41 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-05-2004 1:25 AM jalajo has not replied
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 10-05-2004 12:36 PM jalajo has not replied
 Message 25 by Amlodhi, posted 10-05-2004 2:19 PM jalajo has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 49 (147377)
10-05-2004 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by jalajo
10-05-2004 12:49 AM


Argument from Morality
Morality is derived from the desire to want to give one's offspring the maximum chance of survival. Humans, like animals, have the greatest compulsion to protect and act altruistically to the immediate offspring and family, and lesser compulsion to social circles, to society and to the species as a whole. You generally don't see animals within one species or one group slaughtering each (well no more so than humans!) Why is that? Is that not morality amongst animals?
It makes perfect evolutionary sense, and has an underlining evolutionary compulsion. Certain brain injuires can reduce or destroy and individuals ability to make moral decisions, so we even have a physiological basis.
It is then varied greatly by environment and culture (and individual aberration such as injury or mental illness).
Christians who propose this argument only have to look at the history of the Christian church, or indeed look throughout the mulititude of Christian denominations for an extremely varied manifestation of morality.
There is a whole stack of rebuttals of the argument from morality here: Theism Moral » Internet Infidels
And to gut all your other arguments, look here: Theism Arguments » Internet Infidels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jalajo, posted 10-05-2004 12:49 AM jalajo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by AdminNosy, posted 10-05-2004 1:51 AM Gilgamesh has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 18 of 49 (147380)
10-05-2004 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Gilgamesh
10-05-2004 1:25 AM


Avoid just pointing to links
Gig, please avoid just pointing to links. If there is an argument you want to make then make it here at least in a quick summary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-05-2004 1:25 AM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-05-2004 2:19 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 49 (147388)
10-05-2004 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by AdminNosy
10-05-2004 1:51 AM


Re: Avoid just pointing to links
Oops, sorry!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by AdminNosy, posted 10-05-2004 1:51 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 20 of 49 (147491)
10-05-2004 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jalajo
10-05-2004 12:43 AM


Hi there... I think you are probably right in saying that its unlikely that anyone's mind is going to be changed by arguments presented here. However, it should be possible for most people here to consider these arguments for the existence of God critically. I warn you though, I am a pretty ignorant son of the soil, so don't take what I say too seriously.
There are two big problems for me with the Cosmological argument that I have never seen adequately answered. Firstly, as someone already said, how can God escape your rule that everything has a cause? Secondly, the argument totally fails to describe the nature of the first cause. It doesn't have to be the Christian god. It could be something without intelligence... it could be anything.
The anrthopological argument you present is just an assertion, isn't it? Do you think that this argument in itself has any worth?
Your Ontalogical argument doesn't sound like the one that I've heard before. I think Voltaire(?) had something to say that contradicts what you had to say... I paraphrase... God is such a good idea that if he didn't exist we would have to invent him. I think it is very easy indeed to posit imaginary, unknowable beings. Why do you think this would be so hard?
Live Long And Prosper

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jalajo, posted 10-05-2004 12:43 AM jalajo has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 49 (147502)
10-05-2004 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jalajo
10-02-2004 2:08 PM


If no God exists then how did the belief of God or any god come about
If no Santa Claus exists, then how did the belief of Santa Claus come about?
If no Easter Bunny exists, then how did the belief in the Easter Bunny come about?
People believe dumb things. That's how belief in God comes about. I didn't "choose to reject God." I don't believe in God. That's it. I have no belief in God, so there is no inherent belief in God. If there was, I would have it, and believe in God.
I don't believe in God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jalajo, posted 10-02-2004 2:08 PM jalajo has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 49 (147507)
10-05-2004 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jalajo
10-02-2004 2:25 PM


We really don't see "morality" in the animal kingdom.
Actually, we do. Many social animals develop very complicated systems of behavior, systems that often place the good of the group over individual benefit, even individual survival. Meerkats shreik at incoming predators, an action that is individually quite maladaptive but protects the group. Chimpanzees have a well-known sense of "fair play"; if two chimps perform the same task, but are rewarded differently, the chimp that got the shaft will refuse to play again.
There's plenty of altruism and complex social morality in the animal kingdom. Of course, because you're already sure that animals don't have morals, you'll concoct ad-hoc rationalizations to explain these behaviors as "different" in animals, even though the results are the same as we see in humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jalajo, posted 10-02-2004 2:25 PM jalajo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Gastric ReFlux, posted 10-05-2004 1:54 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 49 (147508)
10-05-2004 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jalajo
10-05-2004 12:49 AM


Not talking about different standards or morals in cultures, where does a sense of morality at all come from then?
It comes from human social organization. "Morality" is the set of codes we develop and internalize in order to function not as individuals, but as a society.
Why do we do this? Because forming societies is the only thing we're good at; we don't have claws or poison stingers or any other survival weapons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jalajo, posted 10-05-2004 12:49 AM jalajo has not replied

  
Gastric ReFlux
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 49 (147537)
10-05-2004 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
10-05-2004 12:33 PM


Thank you for pointing this out. It's rather frustrating to hear the morality argument trotted out when animal species demonstrate a moral sense, and social animals like chimps are close to our own moral compass. Sure, the animals don't get to wrangle over it in debates, or write treatises about it because they don't have our specialized skill of language, but they have instincts that give them a remarkable sense of fair play.
In truth, if I were God and designing creatures, I wouldn't make just onc species a recipient of a moral code, I would put instinctive instructions at the basic programming of every species that achieves multi-cellular level. The transistion from unicellular to multi-cellular may be the very beginnings to moral instructions in the genetic code, as what had been previously single cells operating independently pooled together and achieved a fairer division of the available resources.
But I'm starting to drift from the topic, just suffice it to say I don't find the morality argument in any way convincing that there is a god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 10-05-2004 12:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 10-06-2004 2:01 AM Gastric ReFlux has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 49 (147545)
10-05-2004 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jalajo
10-05-2004 12:49 AM


Re: Arguments
quote:
Originally posted by jalajo
. . . where does a sense of morality at all come from then?
Hi jalajo,
Gilgamesh and crashfrog have done an admirable job of providing you with some of the evolutionary factors that could have selected for a developing sense of morality.
I would only add that a heightened sense of morality is probably the result of heightened intelligence. The next step beyond self-awareness is "other-awareness", i.e., the ability to perceive other's circumstances/emotions based upon our own experiences. The term for this, of course, is "empathy".
A very young child may see nothing immoral about carrying off another child's toy. A slightly older child may understand that if he is caught carrying off another child's toy, he will be punished.
But there comes a time (for most people, and to varying degrees) when they reach the point of development that they are able to vicariously experience the emotions of others. Thus, we tend to feel happy when we make others happy, and we tend to feel bad when we make others feel bad.
Amlodhi
This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-05-2004 01:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jalajo, posted 10-05-2004 12:49 AM jalajo has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 26 of 49 (147547)
10-05-2004 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by almeyda
10-02-2004 2:25 PM


Yep. I understand what you mean exactly. If humans werent created by God. We would be exactly like all the other animals. Interested only in survival.
Thats a gross oversimplification of animal behavior. Anyone whos had a pet for a long time, especialy several pets, will tell you animals have distinct personalities and motivations. Wolves play, make friends, have partners, etc.
Furthermore, humans are pretty interested in survival as well last time I checked.
[qs]But man is rational, he can investigate the world.[qs] Ever seen a chimp figure out a problem? Or a curious kitten?
And this intelligence does not come from premeval ponds. And fish do not turn into people, not matter how many magic wands of 'billions of yrs and chance' are thrown around.
This is a total missrepresentation of the TOE as well as a baseless aargument from incredulity. So I will not even adress it, though I would love to hear more about your ideas concerning animal motivation. Because aperantly you know what dolphins are thinking in those big brains of theirs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by almeyda, posted 10-02-2004 2:25 PM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by almeyda, posted 10-06-2004 1:21 AM Yaro has not replied

  
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 49 (147549)
10-05-2004 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Amlodhi
10-02-2004 5:41 PM


Re: Arguments
Just a quick comment about infinite regression - the law of causality is that every effect must have a cause, not that everything must have a cause. If something is not an effect (God) then it does not need a cause, and their is no infinite regression.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Amlodhi, posted 10-02-2004 5:41 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-05-2004 2:35 PM General Nazort has not replied
 Message 29 by Amlodhi, posted 10-05-2004 9:50 PM General Nazort has not replied
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 10-06-2004 2:02 AM General Nazort has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 49 (147550)
10-05-2004 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by General Nazort
10-05-2004 2:32 PM


Re: Arguments
How can you say the Universe is an effect without committing the fallacy of composition?
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by General Nazort, posted 10-05-2004 2:32 PM General Nazort has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 49 (147669)
10-05-2004 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by General Nazort
10-05-2004 2:32 PM


Re: Arguments
quote:
Originally posted by General Nazort
. . . the law of causality is that every effect must have a cause, not that everything must have a cause. If something is not an effect (God) then it does not need a cause, and their is no infinite regression.
This is no better.
Either way you are arbitrarily assigning to a presumed God whatever properties will exempt him from the conditions you have set up.
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by General Nazort, posted 10-05-2004 2:32 PM General Nazort has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 49 (147695)
10-06-2004 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Yaro
10-05-2004 2:29 PM


quote:
Thats a gross oversimplification of animal behavior. Anyone whos had a pet for a long time, especialy several pets, will tell you animals have distinct personalities and motivations. Wolves play, make friends, have partners, etc.
Furthermore, humans are pretty interested in survival as well last time I checked.
If humans werent created. They wouldnt be any morality. There is no morality among the animal kingdom. There is no evidence that human morality has evolved from premeval ape-men.
Language is another factor. Scientist know that there had to be one language at the beginning. Yet they dont know where it came from, since evolutionary scientist reject that God made man and gave him language to rationally interact with each other and with the Creator.
Belief in a deity is not common among any animal except human beings. Why? Oh because we evolved and were smarter now. Right? Well this is what i mean when i say animals are only interested in survival. They dont go to parties, they dont know that this world is real, there is only survival and 'now' in there minds. Yet humans create complex legal codes and systems, they have art, comedy, architecture, science. Evolutionists are the ones with closed minds because they believe we have evolved from pond-scum into what we are now. Can we believe that? I certainly cant. Humans can develop an argument, follow a line of logic, draw conclusions and frame hypotheses.
I couldnt be bothered talking about this anymore. The reason why humans are so different from animals is because we are created in the image of God. We are not evolving, humans will not be anything else in yrs to come. We will be like this. And animals will also be in there own kinds. Till the end of time. Just as the Bible taught us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Yaro, posted 10-05-2004 2:29 PM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 10-06-2004 1:59 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 35 by tsig, posted 10-20-2004 11:39 PM almeyda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024