Moral Argument for God

quote:

---

If we ask "why" about everything we do, we will eventually come down to either two answers: "because that's what God wants, or becausethat's what we want"

​

Asking why does God want it is silly because what is, is simply what is. It's like asking why must red be red or the sky blue. Asking why we want it will most likely lead us back to some explanation of evolutionary origin, which carries no intention, and therefore no reason.

---

Here's an example. There is no room for morality left. So there's no logical basis for anybody condemning anything. If Hitler genuinely beleived he was doing what God wanted then he was a highly moral individual (if sadly mistaken). Genocide is good if God happens to want it. Racist vigilante murder is good if God happens to want it (e.g. Numbers 25:6-8). This argument rules out morality.

I don't read any biology journals. If it doesn't make the main stream media's science section or the Science Channel, I wouldn't be aware of it.I would think though that if hyper creativity would in fact exist and seeing where evolution is today, evidence of superior creations superceeding our own would be popping up at an interval that would be very apperant to anyone with life in them. Not just people like yourself who are well plugged in to that particular disipline.The Autistic child arguement still sounds almost viable to me the way I had it presented, but admittedly it is not all that good of an arguement to someone like yourself who is involved with these children.Being involved in military technology, the only other place where I witness any type of hyper creativity in naure is in biological warefare. Some of the strains of weapons that are out there are marvelous examples of this creativity. But again, they have had an infussion of intellegence in order for them to have been created and they are all counter productive to promoting evolution of advanced species. Most of these are the biological equivelent of a T3 Terminator which would cauterize any branch of evolution right in it's tracks.

Well, that is a number of strawman arguments. First of all, it is assuming that since there is no absolute moral authority (i.e. god), then there are no reasons for morality. That of course is incorrect.Next, it assumes that an atheist would accept the actions of Hitler. Considering that Hitler used Jesus and Christainity as justifications for his actions against the Jews, that is highly ironic.Do you think if you didn't have God looking over your shoulder to keep you moral, you would be going out and doing all sorts of immoral things, like rape, murder and stealing?

WHy would you think that it would be evidence of a far greater super creativity than our own?Where did that 'super creativity' come from? What mechanism is in place for this supercreativity to impliment it's designs?

Haha... riiight... this statement leads me to believe that everything following is ridiculous Christian bashing crap.and whadyaknow... I was right. What does this even have to do with the original argument? Whateva... Your reasoning would be?And... if you had read the Bible, you would know that the law is only for the law-breakers. Christian morality goes beyond the law and is produced by the Spirit of Truth. And I realize you won't understand this.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 07-25-2005 10:10 AM

I'm still at a loss for how you reach this conclusion.

No, you were wrong.But then anyone who can't see a relationship between ethnic genocide and Hitler is hardly equipped to judge.

OK, so where is the room for morality in your argument ?

Did you read my post? Apparently not. I said that the reasons were of a practical nature (e.g. putting on your sneakers). No. You obviously didn't read my post very carefully.An atheist most likely would not accept the actions of hitler, because only a very sick person would, but he would have no logical basis for declaring Hitler's actions as wrong. They are only wrong in so far as they go against humanist desires and ideals, which we can accept as being in line with our desires, but not elevate to the status of absolute good. This has about as much to do with the argument as me bringing up Stalin as an example of an immoral atheist. OF COURSE NOT. Now kindly go back and read my post before you reply.

Hi Sidelined! I will quote Dr. Heisenberg: " Nature can not possibly be this absurd."In my opinion absurdity is at the very core of existance itself. If one wishes to assume a nihlistic view of human existance one could posit that there is no reason that anything exists.If one wishes to assume a atheistic view of human existance one could posit that the universe exist because it does.If one wishes to assume a theistic view of human existance one could posit that the universe exist because something wants it to.Reality is ultimately governed by nature. Nature is ultimately governed by the manifestation of energy.We do not know what causes this energy nor where it comes from. Therefore one position is just as valid as the next IMO.From a human standpoint I know that I can never experiance reality as it is outside of my perspective. I know that my organic body is nothing more than a collection of atoms that has 'absurdly' somehow become sentient. But when I see how absolutely fantastic nature is, how unimaginably complex yet eloquentley simple; when I see how atrophy becomes organized into a ever increasing order and then back into caos I can not rule out a creator.Even as absurd as it may sound I am not able to deny the possiblity of God.

I would think though that if hyper creativity would in fact exist and seeing where evolution is today, evidence of superior creations superceeding our own would be popping up at an interval that would be very apperant to anyone with life in them. Not just people like yourself who are well plugged in to that particular disipline./qsAppeal to Ignorance fallacy. Just becasue it hasn't been put directly in front of you, personally, doesn't mean it isn't so. It may "sound viable" to you, but you're still wrong. Autism is a difference in brain function, not the beginning of speciation. By your logic, people with all manner of differences could be the beginnings of a new species.

Your logic is mostly sound. There is no way to disprove the existance of a deity.However, the argument is cut apart by Occam's Razor (pardon the pun). Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation is typically the correct one. Simple, in this instance, refers to the explanation with the fewest entities. If 2=2+x, then x=0 and should not be included. If (explanation of morality, or the universe, or whatever)=(same explanation)+(God), then God is not necessary to the explanation and is irrelevant to the discussion.Agaibn, we are not saying that God cannot exist. Only that morality is fully definable in human terms without the existance of a deity, and so the deity's existance or nonexistance is irrelevant. This is sound. No one can disprove God's existance. It is impossible to prove a negative, after all. But the nature of morality does not confirm His existance.

Thank you for allowing that an atheist would "most likely" disapprove of Hitler.To say that there would be no "logical basis" for that disapproval, however, is incorrect. It is logical to assume that every human being has the same basic rights, such as the right to life, and the right not to be tortured. It is fully logical to be appalled at violations of those universal human rights, purely on the basis that you wouldn't want it to happen to you and can empathize.

Maybe you've seen a few of them? They're called "living things."Seriously, if the creativity represented in the natural world isn't enough for you, if you believe the scope of human instrumentality even approaches the level of creativity that typefies even the most simple of organisms, there's absolutely no pleasing you. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that I actually, personally interviewed any autistic persons. The interviews I referred to were radio/tv interviews that I had viewed, not any personal experience I have on the subject. In fact, I have none. "Infusion of intelligence?" And what form, exactly, does this "infusion" take? IV drip? Selection is selection. In the natural world a potently lethal virus has to have a long incubation time or else it extinguishes infectees before they can carry it to new hosts, and it goes extinct. That's a selection pressure for long incubation times.Biowarfare programs can select for short incubation times, but that's still selection. The exact same process. It isn't even "artifical" selection because humans evolved in, and are part of, the natural world. Even when we do it on purpose its still selection, still mutation, still evolution; to assert that an "infusion" of intelligence is to assert something that has no relevant meaning.

Your example assumes that human creativity determines the form of the bioweapons. This is incorrect. As crashfrog mentioned, humans artificially select more deadly strains. At no point does a human being say "well, if we put this protein here, and that one there." We don't make a set of blueprints or make a fabrication plant. We just accellerate the pathogen's evolution and select for more desirable traits.We breed dogs the same way. We breed the ones that have features we like. Nobody "designed" the German Shepherd - it's just the result of breeding for a few specific traits.