Moral Argument for God

Not in this instance. It's a statement of fact. A person who lacks empathy and the ability to feel guilt (in other words, a person lacking a personal moral compass) is classified by modern psychology as a psychopath.

It's not begging the question. It's also not personal taste, it's part of our nature as human beings! Just look at some developmental psycology. We tend to behave in certain ways in order to belong and get along because it's conducive to survival.It dosn't matter if you care or not. And if NOBODY cares society would not survive. Not only that, but humanity it'self would likely be at risk.Now, does this have some kind of cosimic significance? I doubt it. I don't think morality exists beyone humans. But like I said, they are internal rules that we follow and as such have certain absolute principals.If someone down the line corrupts the whole thing and we all degenrate into canabalistic savages, it dosn't bely the fact that if we followd my a/b principals we would all be happier and better off. That's all Im saying. That's my definition of morality.

In terms of this discussion, then, it appears that you are both in agreement. Whether morality is universal or not, it does not prove the existance of God.

No, I don't have any better explanation. I supposed it evolved. As far as animals having morality, I'm not sure. I think one would have to be able to distinguish between what is just and what is in one's personal best interest in order to think morally. I'm not sure animals can do that. But then I don't know what goes in an animnal's mind.

Yes, funny how it took so many words to figure that out

Yaro, Rahvin, and others who subscribe to their logic should look at this. Here is a list of your fallacies:Naturalistic fallacy - WikipediaBegging the question - WikipediaAd hominem - WikipediaArgumentum ad populum - WikipediaArgumentum ad populum - WikipediaAppeal to emotion - WikipediaPlease take a few moments to read these and you will understand why you have no argument.

I will respond to these later in the day. Im at work right now and I don't have time to adress all the points.

Please point out specifically where I am guuilty of a logical fallacy.My argument is simply that morality can be described in fully human terms without the existance of God. Good and bad are values created by the rational human mind, not supernaturally dictated. To add God to the description of morality adds an unnecessary entity, and so Occam's Razor states that God should be considered irrelevant.

Well, I don't know exactly what is going on in my dog's mind either but yet I can tell when he wants something from me, when he is happy, when he is sad, when he is embarrassed. And I know he sneaks up on the couch when I am not around. A mated pair of female and male penguins take turns protecting the egg and later the chick. Sometimes during a storm the female loses her chick and occasionally in her grief she will try to steal a chick from another female. Penguins nearby will join in to prevent the theft. Do animals have a sense of morality? You tell me.

"But like I said, they are internal rules that we follow and as such have certain absolute principals."It's those principals with the absolute principles that make the best principals.

The behavior you are describing in regard these animals might be all mindless instinct for all we know. Mindless instinct does not include the practice of choosing whether or not to do a good deed.

And how do we decide what is "mindless instinct" and what is "free choice"? I am quite certain my dog's leaping on the couch is a choice based on whether he thinks he can get away with it - not mindless instinct. As for the penguins - not all grieving penguins choose to try to steal a chick - it is relatively rare - and not all bystander penguins choose to defend the "victim". So, again, how do you decide if it is "mindless instinct" or choice? It seems to me that you are starting with the premise that animals are controlled by mindless instinct but people are controlled by free choice. Is that premise based on scientific understanding or anthropocentric bias?This message has been edited by deerbreh, 07-27-2005 04:45 PM

Just a guess. There's no way to know for sure.

I beg to differ with you. You have answered the question, assuming it was not a false dichotomy. If it had been scientific understanding, you would be able to make some kind of scientific argument.

What are you differing with me about? I said I was guessing. Are you saying I am not guessing? How would you know I'm not guessing? It's not a scientific argument. There's no firm evidence one way or the other, but there is a lot of speculation and tentative hypotheses. A creature might be conscious but still might not be capable of moral decisions. An animal's outward behavior does not in inself indicate self-consciousness and certainly not the understanding of a moral syllogism. An animal might do something that we would call unselfish behavior, but if he's doing it by rote it's not a moral action. It's the action of a machine.