Proofs of God

quote:

---

Originally posted by BambooGuy:
you can't prove God's existence using science, because science strictly deals with the tangible, physical world.

---

very true, but what other way is there?

quote:

---

But as we think about this problem we must try to find something in the universe that might have a non-physical aspect to it. And we find that Christian theology claims that humans have souls

---

stresses the word 'might'

quote:

---

Now we have to find some evidence of this soul, if it truly exists.

---

but ofcourse, but by which method will you prove the existence of the soul??? surely not empirical!!! -fails to state method.

quote:

---

Have you ever seen two people quarreling? They say things like, "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?" or "That's my seat, I was there first" or "Give me some of your orange, I gave you some of mine--Come on, you promised!"

---

and your point is?

quote:

---

Now what is useful about this illustration, is that the man making these statements is not appealing to his own displeasure at having lost his seat. He is appealing to an external standard of conduct

---

quote:

---

But this is very contrary to what we see in nature.

---

So, we have big brains, we are smarter and more socially intelligent. nothing 'supernatural' about that.

quote:

---

It's as if both people were playing under a law or standard of fairness morality about which they both really agreed.

---

what's so special or supernatural about that?

quote:

---

They may differ on specifics, Judaism requires monogamy while Islam allows polygamy, but they agree on the basics,

---

why don't they agree on everythingWhere do you prove the existence of a 'soul'??? I must have missed it somewhere.

quote:

---

Also, please clarify the stuff about practical system. Lewis is not saying that morality is physical. He's saying that it is metaphysical and influences and directs our physical actions.

---

can you prove this link between the physical and metaphysical? if not, then why should we believe you?

WHO CARES ABOUT THE DAMN WITCHES!!!!Just get onto the next bit ok? this is sooOOOooo Boring!

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
What are your ideas on where this came from?

---

what's wrong with 'we don't know yet'. Although we expect that science will provide an answer.

quote:

---

funkmasterfreaky
In his book "Mere Christianity" Lewis proposes a "moral law", something like a natural law, ie. gravity. The difference he points out it is that unlike natural laws we have a choice whether or not to obey the "moral law".

---

Well. Any philosopher will tell you that such a 'moral law' is impossible for us to know since it is impossible to derive ethics logically from our natural environment. i challenge anyone to prove for instance that cold-blooded killing is wrong, using empirical evidence. You will find that it is impossible.Lewis must therefore make some reference to a 'soul' or similar supernatural entity upon which he departs from the world of reason to the hypothetical and, might i say, dogmatic realm.The existence of a 'soul' implies [though you might disagree] that our minds and actions cannot be explained [in principle] by science and that therefore, some supernatural/external force must be involved in our decision making. When asked to verify where this supposed cartesian 'link' between body and soul lies [i.e. in my foot, or in my head?] you will no doubt be unable to provide an answer, hence verifying the 'God of the Gaps' nature of your claim, or at least that your claim is based merely on the fact that our current lack of knowledge of the workings of the human brain, allows room for an infinite variety of religious hypotheses.Gzus[This message has been edited by Gzus, 03-08-2003]

Yes, Evan, it is impossible to prove any ethic by empirical method, but it is not impossible to explain them [i would think] since there remains the possibility that our concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are simply a complex anomaly of the brain. Your metaphysical claim however, is entirely hypothetical since we have by definition, no 'empirical' [i.e. natural] evidence of the supernatural.As for Abraham lincoln, we do not 'know' [i.e. have absolute proof of] his existence [since there are no absolute proofs], although we choose to believe it due to overwhelming empirical evidence, plus the fact that we trust historians in this case.Gzus[This message has been edited by Gzus, 03-09-2003]

quote:

---

There is the one problem I see with the argument, the perception of great reformers and tyrannical dictators. If morality is merely an anomaly (and therefore has no objective reality) then Hitler was the most sane individual in history, except for Stalin. And Martin Luther King, Jr.; Mother Theresa; Jesus; and Buddha are the most deceptive and misguided humans ever to walk the face of the earth.

---

So what? why is this a problem, how does this change anything?If there are no morals, then 'sanity' and 'deceptiveness' have no meaning. Hence if there are no morals, then the holocaust was as significant as the bug that died on my window sill this morning, or the dust that blew off my bookshelf. The problem with your 'problem' is that your emotional bias has corrupted your reasoning.You cannot say it is 'wrong' to deny the existence of 'wrong'.

quote:

---

Here's another question, how can you call it an anomaly without accepting the metaphysical? Isn't an anomaly a misperception of the objective truth? This particular anomaly would suggest a real metaphysical truth, because this 'truth' is opposed to the empirical evidence. So this idea of an anomaly suggests the metaphysical.

---

perhaps i have misused the word anomaly, what i meant is that emotions/morals are a 'complex manifestation of the physical world', in full adherence to the laws of physics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BambooGuy:
Gzus,
As I said before, this isn't a -logical- problem for your theory, but no one can live that way. I'm sure you would object if I held a gun to your head and started to pull the trigger. Yes, my horror over the Holocaust, southern racism, and the pogroms is emotional, how can one not have these feelings? The facts are that the human race is horrified over such atrocities.

---

I do not see that an inability to deny oneself of emotion proves that emotion has either 'meaning' or a metaphysical origin.

quote:

---

The point of all this is that this perception of morality is ludicrous in a purely naturalistic universe. So how can it exist? How could a perception of morality have popped up in humans (and possibly animals) if there is no real objective morality behind it? Even Hume's imagination theories can't explain this. How did it happen?

---

This is exactly what neuroscience hopes to discover. To claim that neuroscience has failed before it has even made the attempt is dangerous grounds for a metaphysical claim.

quote:

---

Humans do not behave in accordance with their perception of morality. We say that x is 'bad' and then we commit it. We think that there are things we should not do, but we do them anyway. This is very bizarre, don't you think?

​

I cannot think of a non-metaphysical explanation for this. If morality is a configuration of our physical brains why don't we obey it? How did the feeling of guilt come into the human psyche?

​

Evan

---

The fact that you cannot provide an explanation for this seemingly (though hardly neccessarily) inexplicable phenomena does not mean that no one can or will. Your argument bears a great resemblance to the 'God of the Gaps'.Gzus[This message has been edited by Gzus, 03-16-2003]

Evan,

quote:

---

Using a future discovery of science to prove one's point is very dangerous. How do we know neuroscience will discover this?

---

You're quite right, we don't know this for certain. Even so, it remains an option [and a likely one at that]. the fact that there is always this option as an alternative to the metaphysical means that there is no absolute proof of God. It does not bother scientists that science is never 100% [sometimes less] sure, as it represents knowledge 'as far as we know' -it's results are not meant to provoke 'emotion'. Religions however, often attach a great amount of importance to the knowledge that God HAS to exist since they need this confirmation to justify concepts such as hell and damnation.We live in a sceptic's paradise, there are always hypothetical alternatives and therefore no absolute proofs.Gzus[This message has been edited by Gzus, 03-21-2003]

I think you underestimate morality. Morality is one our best survival gimmicks. We are social beings and we cooperate with each other hence civilisation. Plus, if vietnam had happened 300 years ago, the USA probably would have gunned down everyone. genocide was quite common until recently.

BambooguyYou seem to be trying to imply that it is impossible that this concept 'morality' could have arisen from the physical world, but you seem to be unable to prove it. I would like to know what is so special about morality that it must have some metaphysical origin. where [exactly] have you observed this 'unnatural link' between the natural and the supernatural that would give grounds to this claim?

quote:

---

Take a Darwinian approach, survival of the fittest. Morality is not more fit. In Vietnam we would have lost much fewer soldiers if we had merely gunned down everyone we met. How could an anomaly such as morality have been developed if it poses such a huge disadvantage?

---

You seem to use the argument 'morality has no survival value' to argue that it cannot have evolved, but you only have to look around you to see its survival value. Could you please elaborate on how exactly you came to this conclusion?Gzus