Moral Argument for God

Here's how I see it. The animal kingdom and nature do not have morals. Animals murder and steal and its just might makes right or survival of the fittest. I think humans have stepped outside of nature, we have morals. I think they've come from us having a consciousness and being able to predict the results of our actions, how they'd affect other people. I think this seperates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. We're outside of nature, there's something supernatural about us. Its on the inside, like our soul, or something. This suggests the existance of a god, to me. That we don't fit in with the rest of the animals.On good and evil. A metaphor I use to describe them is hot and cold. You cannot make cold, you can only remove heat. God is good is the heat, and evil is the cold. Evil isn't something that is made, evil is just a lack of good(god).

I think its in how you look at it, with your own biases and wants. A theist, who wants to believe in god, observes something and sees evidence of god because of the innate want. An atheist, wanting to support his position of godlessness, personifies animals and raises them to our level, or ‘de-personifies’ humans to bring us down to the animal’s level. Both sides are making a biased observation.A wolf’s chances for survival are lowered without the help of the pack. When a wolf helps the pack, he is helping himself. I don’t think the wolf makes a conscious decision to endanger himself for the good of the pack, I think it’s a behavioral instinct that’s over personified, like these statements: I don’t see these as conscious decisions, I see them as behavioral instincts.Now, when you say things like: I see these instincts help the group, which in turn helps the individual. I think the animal is helping himself by helping the group. I put this shaded quote there to exemplify the ‘de-personifying‘ of humans that I meant. Nothing, but as we live in a society, we have to deem some actions as unacceptable, or unlawful. Nope, that’s one of the reasons that I think we are outside of nature. The first statement I agree with. Only one part of creation has a standard of morality and that is humans, although it is not an ‘ultimate’ standard. But being the only ones with that standard makes us different than the rest of the creation. I think this suggests gods existence and an ultimate standard for all of creation would support the atheist position, because then humans wouldn’t be so special afterall. What about Homo Sapiens? Can that animal commit a crime?But the other animals, they cannot commit crimes because they don’t have laws. Calling their actions murder or stealing is just an easier way to describe it, even if it is a little inaccurate.

No, humans have instinctual behaviors but also make conscious decisions on top of them. I think that animals also have instinctual behaviors, but do not make conscious decisions on top of them. Sometimes it may seem like they do, and if you're actively looking for it its easier to think you see it, especially if you want to personify the animal. Something that you see in humans that you don't see in animals is an ultimate altruism, so to speak. In an army platoon, one soldier jumps on a grenade, killing himself, so that no one else will die. Or while Mt. climbing, the person hanging at the bottom of the rope,that cannot hold the whole group, cuts the line above him so that he is the only one that dies. This is a personification of animals that I disagree with, i just don't give animals that much credit. I don't think they 'like their friend' or have knowledge about what their friends will do.

I'm no biblical literalist and I accept the theory of evolution, but I also believe in the special creation of humans. I think we evolved, physically, from the other animals and then god gave us a soul.

Thats just stupid. Its like asking me to prove to you that anything exists, or that this isn't just some dream, or that we don't really live in the matrix. There is a basic structure to morality that all the societies share, a fundamental morality. The moralities do differ on an extraneous level, but the core is the same. For example, the golden rule.

quote:

---

The Universality of the Golden Rule in the World Religions

​

Christianity: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1

​

Confucianism: Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Analects 12:2

​

Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1

​

Hinduism: This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517

​

Islam: No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah

​

Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3id

​

Taoism: Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien

​

Zoroastrianism: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

---

let me quote you from another thread:

quote:

---

God.

​

Get a dictionary.

---

p.s. I'm leaving work now and won't be posting anymore tonight for a while, if at all.

I understand your opinion but I simply disagree with it, and I do understand what an instinct is. How powerful an instinct is and how much behavior is dependent on it isn't something that we're going to conclude here. I happen to believe that the animals are closer to mindless automatons than they are to being human. Here's a definition from dictionary.com for instinct that I agree with:

quote:

---

1 : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
2 : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

---

About your dog experience...Why do you think that your dog did anything other than what her instinct was? What makes you think that this is what the instinct would be? Thats what it looked like to you, and you've personified the dogs actions. I think she reacted just how her instinct was, with no rational decision being made. Her instict could simply have been,with no assessing or rationalizing needed, that: about altruism This tale differs because the animal did not allow itself to die. The soldier/mt. climber both kill themself to save others. This dog, while allowing itself to be injured, did not allow itself to die. The same goes for your dog. The dog was protecting you, its pack, and therefor protecting itself, but I do not think it would die for you.I'm not saying animals can't be altruistic, but there does seem to be a difference in how far they will go when compared to humans, who will go all the way.

These are extraneous morals that would differ between individuals and and societies, that coexist with the fundamental, underlying morality that I believe humans share.I don't see what my opinion of homosexuality has to do with this thread. But, whatever you're doing with your partner, if they don't like and don't want you to do it, then doing it would be immoral.

Yaro-Whether or not your dog has made a rational decision is off topic so I'll stop, so if you want to start a thread I'll reply, but I'm not going to start one.I do think that, in general, animal consciousness is important to the moral argument for god. Because, if humans are no different from animal, then either animals do have morality or humans do not. We can equate humans to animals by either lowering humans to the animal's position, or by raising animals to the human's position.As: I agree that we are animal, non-humans do not have morality, and that having morality makes us superior. Being superior, because we have morality and consciousness, to the rest of the animals suggests, to me, that there must be a god. I posted the definition of instinct that I agree with already. I don't see how the way I described it implies some level of decision making. And, the animal does not have to make a choice on what is a threat because their instincts provide them with the reaction to what might be a threat. I would say no because I think instincts happen on a subconscious level.....
more later, out of time

PaulK-You say that this passage: I don't think it does. It say that we have become like god in that we know good and evil but we are not the same as god, especially if he is omnscient. Its like a square(god) is like a rectangle(us) but a rectangle is not like a square, totally. make sense?Rahvin- Note, the argument is not that it is the BELIEF in god that allows you to define good and evil, it is the EXISTANCE of god that allows you to do that. Your definitions exist with or without your beliefs, but they don't exist without god, says the argument. Right, this is an example of the fundamental morality that exists in humans that, to me, suggest there is a god. An off topic side note that needs no reply.
"I’ve just seen too many examples of Occam’s Razor being misused" Do you realize that you, yourself, are misusing it? Occam’s Razor does not say that the simplest explanation is typically the correct one. And it DOES refer to the explanation with the fewest words AND even the explanation easiest to understand. check out this website: Occam's Razor which says:

quote:

---

It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one.

---

bold added for emphasis..Occam's razor is not about chosing the correct model, its about chosing the "fewest words" or the "simplest" model.Liz- I agree with this statement, but IMHO the "everything just is" part is wrong. From what I've experienced there is much more to our existance. Realize that both, the human and asteroid perspective, are of equal insignificance to the universe, but both are NOT of equal insignificance to US. This difference, puts us at some place above the asteroid.
and as Yaro says: forget the amazonian indians because they don't fit in with this quote: But unlike the indians, the others cannot. This is the difference between humans and animal that, to me, suggests there is a god. But, if you take the position that man is just another animal, then we are just acting natually and this planet has made its own cancer. Its not or fault, we've done nothing wrong. I don't deem us superior to the rest of creation, I scientifically observed it. Well, for me, when I look at th universe from the asteroids perspective then nothing matter, but when I look at from my perspective everything matters. I believe that my perspective is like god's perspective but with the same square/rectangle analogy. His is greater, but mine is like his.ssorry for tis but, I've been juming to and from the computer typing this up,and I'm startin gto get drunk, I had more I wannted to say but i just don't have time and I'm getting tired so I'm just gonna copy and paste what I have and hit the button.see ya tomarrow

I don't think that the existance of a universal/fundamental morality can be explained in wholly human, logical and reasonable terms, which is one of the reasons I believe in god. There seems to be a basic, universal morality in humans, a conscience, that fuels beliefs that are shared by the religions of the world. There are similarities on a fundamental level, a core universal morality that I don't think can be explained without the existance of god.

You can use a statement like this to rationalize any immoral behavior.For example,
Hitler did nothing wrong because it was just (a split-second in the whole course of) natural selection and evolution. Tearing down the rainforests or burning up the o-zone is a natural result of our all-natural actions, its not our fault and we’ve done nothing wrong, just nature taking its course.So, even though atheist are not necessarily immoral, you can use the atheist view to explain immoral behavior as being natural, which can take the immorality out of the behavior. Not making it moral, but making it not immoral.Which is similar to what So, you can explain morality naturally, without god, but you can also show that looking at it naturally can remove immorality from actions. Still though, we continue to impose immorality, which seems to suggest, to me, that there is some unnatural reason for the comparison. Does that make since? It’s probably some logical fallacy but as I type it makes since to me.

But in order to use christian views to rationalize immoral acts, you have to misuse the christian teachings(position). I don't think I've misused the atheist position to rationalize the immoral acts. This isn't saying that the atheist position is an immoral one, just that it can be used to justify immorality. The christian position cannot be used to justify immorality, and if it is being used that way, then it is being used improperly.So, if you can justify immorality, then you cannot deem certain actions as wrong. You can say that something is moral, because it benefits society or whatever, but to say that something is immoral is illogical, because it is just a natural effect, just nature taking its course, its not necessarily a bad thing.

Your premises are subjective.Harm and benefits are what make them subjective, you cannot objectively define what harms or benefits the global society. What one sees as benifiting society another sees as harming it.With your position, I could define the actions of september eleventh as 'good', based on the terrorists views of their actions. They thought that the United States was harming the global society and that destoying their trade center would benefit the many. They had to do a little harm, in their opinion, in order to prevent a larger amount of harm, thus minimizing harm, and they thought they were benefiting the many by removing that which they thought was harmful.I wish I had more time to post, I'm falling way behind.I don't think that morailty proves the existance of god.I don't think that objective morality can exist without god. It seems that we do have an objective morality though so it seems that there is a god.more when I have time.

I didn't say you couldn't objectively define harm, I said that you couldn't objectively define what harms society. Its all a matter of opinion if something is bad for everyone or not. One problem with this analogy is that too much oil is bad for you car. I don't think too much good is bad for society. In your opinion, and mine too BTW, but we could be wrong. It is possible that their actions prevented more harm that they caused.