Do we need science to back up religion?

quote:

---

Hopefully what I just said is not as confusing as I think it is

---

It sure was confusing. But I think I caught the meaning.
I just have one problem with it. You said that my moral code was the moral code that your god gave me. I disagree because...there is no God (IMO). My real problem with your answer is that we live in this universe not some alternate one. Would it be possible for your god's moral code to change in this universe. If so, how would it come to you (via a new-NT or voices in your head (the movie Se7en))? and how would you judge it to be true? This is just for idle speculation, not a change of faith for you. I know, for you, that the bible is never changing and thus the moral code is the same forever.I just want to know how you can justify your "I suppose so" answer in this universe. take care

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tertulian:
My real problem with your answer is that we live in this universe not some alternate one. Would it be possible for your god's moral code to change in this universe.

---

God's moral code is never-changing, in my opinion. Although I may develop new opinions on what is right and wrong, God still knows what is right and wrong, and I do deep down as well. Also, I think the moral code we have inside of us is rather basic. I think humans have to think for themselves about many issues, but I think everyone knows obvious moral wrongs, such as murder.

quote:

---

I think humans have to think for themselves about many issues, but I think everyone knows obvious moral wrongs, such as murder.

---

So we humans, whether: Christians(Protestant, Catholic, JW, Mormon), Muslims, Hindu, Native Americans, or Communist all get our moral code from your Christian god. The only difference is how we interpret them. Is that what your saying? How do you account for the murderer who is doing 'God's work' (ie. the pro-lifer who kills abortion doctor to save the little children)?This discussion should be in another thread. Sorry it's off topic.

This thread drifted off topic when there was no reply to Cobra_snake's Message 27.--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
You're right- they are a bit different. Perhaps a bad analogy, but I think the point remains the same.

---

Well, if it's a bad analogy, then the point doesn't remain the same.One uses objective, "anyone-can-get-the-same-results" methods, and the other relies on pure, subjective, individual, "all-happening-inside-the-individuals'-head-and-nobody-else's" methods.Apples and oranges.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b] Oh yes I can! Let me explain myself here.

​

You understand that it is morally incorrect to murder. In my view, this is because God has placed within us the knowledge of a basic moral code.[/QUOTE]

​

God didn't do that. Society/culture did that.

​

quote:

---

However, if we lived in a different universe- for example one in which God did not think it was immoral to murder- humans would not have that in their moral code. Thus, it would be perfectly fine for us to murder and we would not think anything of it.

---

​

Replace "universe" with "culture" and I think you will get it right.

​

"The only reason that you think I am following blindly is because of the moral code that you have inside of you. You can't possibly imagine it being morally correct to murder someone- because of your moral code that God has given you.

---

Except that it is OK to a lot of people (many of them Christians) to kill certain criminals, or to kill in the name of war, or to kill in self defense, etc. Infanticide is not considered murder in many cultures, actually. [QUOTE]However, if the moral code was different, so would your opinion of what is right and wrong. For example, in this alternate universe it may be morally incorrect to give somebody a gift. In this universe, shrafinator might ask me, "What if God were to say that giving people gifts is OK?", in which case I would have to give the same explanation.Hopefully what I just said is not as confusing as I think it is.[/b][/QUOTE]No, not confusing at all, and logically consistent. I'm impressed!However, it is also not at all demonstrable that God is the source of morals. It is much more likely that cultures create their own moral codes.There are some univeral morals, but these can be explained through evolutionary means, as explained in Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
However, it is also not at all demonstrable that God is the source of morals. It is much more likely that cultures create their own moral codes.

​

There are some univeral morals, but these can be explained through evolutionary means, as explained in Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.

​

---

Obviously there is a bit of difference of opinion here- and I suppose it is mostly a matter of perspective. If you are an atheist, obviously the existance of universal morals is not going to convince you that God exists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

Apples and oranges.

​

---

Well my main point is that it is not logically valid to DEMAND sight of God in order to believe He exists. However, it is a subject for debate as to whether or not God's existance can be based on evidence (and what type of evidence for that matter) so I see why you are pointing this out.

For me requires a community of people willing to look at Muslim discussion of Aristotle which in a way I attempted in YOUR question to interest the true seekers but they apparently were only interested in maintaing face rather than the face-time needed to answer your question. This is the post7-11 one and I for nine am interested in it but have not time nor money really to pursue it. Some of bioinformatics may show more than an accounting error. Good start.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Obviously there is a bit of difference of opinion here- and I suppose it is mostly a matter of perspective. If you are an atheist, obviously the existance of universal morals is not going to convince you that God exists.

---

This works for Agnostics like myself, as well. I would also like to point out that it's possible to hod a belief in God, yet not believe that God is the source of all morals.If God is the source of everything, as many Christians believe, then He must be the source of all evil, as well. Otherwise the logic is inconsistent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
This works for Agnostics like myself, as well.

​

I would also like to point out that it's possible to hod a belief in God, yet not believe that God is the source of all morals.

​

If God is the source of everything, as many Christians believe, then He must be the source of all evil, as well. Otherwise the logic is inconsistent.

---

We are of course talking human "morals". As you pointed out, infanticide is accepted in some cultures, well, rabbits eat theirs, so whers the "universality" in that, I wonder?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
For me requires a community of people willing to look at Muslim discussion of Aristotle which in a way I attempted in YOUR question to interest the true seekers but they apparently were only interested in maintaing face rather than the face-time needed to answer your question. This is the post7-11 one and I for nine am interested in it but have not time nor money really to pursue it. Some of bioinformatics may show more than an accounting error. Good start.

---

I don't know what you mean but I also think that you understand that these guys does not discuss what I intend to discuss. Thanks.

i have a good task for everyone to complete.
prove your own existence.
just remember everything you brain does is merely an electrical or chemical impulse and can be easily emulated.
how can you exist if the area around you doesnt exist or didnt exist at one point.
your actions and thoughts transcend time and have always been since always is in the past and the past has always been.
and if the past at sometime never was then how could anything then ever be.
how can you have a sole existence if your body and brain were once a part of another existence. what part of you is your own? if every part of you is borrowed.
what makes you different from all of the other crap in the pile?
what sets you apart from the universe?
and how can say that you came to be from a sort of randomality called evolution if that randomality didnt have some sort of drive behind it. how can anything come to be if it didnt have anything to come from.
if our universe exists then what allows to continue to exist? every power has a source. whats the source of everything?
there is a simple answer but it is for you to find.

a religion and is man made and thus can choose to need whatever it wants to support it. religion is in the end just an opinion and opinions dont need particulary need to backed up.thats why i see that religions are folly because they all insist that they are the ones that are correct, not that they are just a group of people who share an opinion. if you ask me i would tell you think hard and decide for yourself what is truly absolute to you. since no matter what your absolute is not my absolute.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i have a good task for everyone to complete.
prove your own existence.
just remember everything you brain does is merely an electrical or chemical impulse and can be easily emulated.

​

if our universe exists then what allows to continue to exist? every power has a source. whats the source of everything?
there is a simple answer but it is for you to find.

---

God is.btw you sound like Harun Yahya...