William Lane Craig vs Theodore Drange (HQ) 2/11

[anyelina5]

There is no creator called god. Universe is ALL space/time AND THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT."To create" is AN ACTION that implies TIME. But here we are in a point where is NO TIME, and we can't pass from point A (atemporal) to point B (temporal) WITHOUT TIME. because "to pass", "to appear", "to create" are verbs that implied time. WE CAN'T CREATE TIME WITHOUT TIME. Therefore, universe can't be created and if it can't be created, THERE IS ANY GOD CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE.

[MrLittleOrno]

Every example of moral abomination Craig gives are acts committed, ordered or sanctioned by God.

[mewboy5]

This guy is not a scientist, I wouldn't even call him a doctor, he is just pathetic, and I'm sorry to all WLC fans, but he fails, epically! Causation requires time as a condition, making a causative agent not only unlikely, but impossible, sorry people, is over...

[6thwing]

@mewboy5 He is a philosopher. Which means he studies philosophy. So no, silly, he's not a scientist. Come on buddy, you can do better than that! Use logical reasoning and prove him wrong.

And you're conclusion is so wrong. How do come to that conclusion from that one premise? Your premise is wrong to: 1) Causation requires time -> first of all, how is this true? You don't need time to cause something. in fact, Time must have been caused, and 'starts' at the beginning of causation.

[dbes02]

@6thwing But if causation requires time how could time have been caused? You fail to address mewboy5's point at all - you just contradict yourself. Just as useless as Craig.

[6thwing]

@dbes02 You can read, can't you? Read, then, the sentences in my post that you are referring to:

"Time must have been caused and STARTS at the beginning of causation".

"You don't need time to cause something"

Reading comprehension is your friend, good sir.

[dbes02]

@6thwing You poor thing, you're the one who said: "you don't need time to cause something" but "time must have been caused". Suerey you're not that devoid of mental ability to see the contradiction that even my 9-year old can see. Read it caerully. Ask your mommy if you have trouble. Then come back with something coherent instead of nonsense.

[6thwing]

@dbes02 You don't need TIME to Cause something. Because TIME ITSELF is caused. Think a little man; your trying to be so argumentative... but you're not thinking.

Next, God's morality is not Subjective. God doesn't 'choose' something because it is good, nor is anything Good because he said it. God does as he wills and God IS Good. So naturally, what God does is Good. Objective Morality shows a right and wrong. I'm sure the way you live your very life testifies to this fact.

[dbes02]

@6thwing No time without matter. Matter can emerge spontaneously, uncaused. Hence time needs no cause. Which god? There are 1000s of them. Presumably you mean the biblical god, but its moral code changed between Tanakh and New Testament so you sink a claim of objective morality. Useless circular argument to begin with, saying "god is good". You sloppily confuse moral instinct - sense of right and wrong - with moral codes that specify what's right & wrong. No objective morality in sight.

[anyelina5]

@6thwing PROVE THAT THE UNIVERSE HAS A CAUSE and try to prove wrong that TIME CAN'T BE CREATED WITHOUT TIME. Be aware that "to create" is an ACTION that implies time. So If time can't be created without time, then the universe could't have been created, therefore.. DON'T HAVE A CAUSE, therefore, THERE IS NO GOD CREATOR OF TIME > NO GOD CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE.

[wachnathan]

I still don't understand how these great thinkers can have debates on subjects that have know evidence for ether side the questions why do we take sides why can't we just stay open minded tell we actully know the real truth thats how you gain knowledge by accepting all information. The only way to shut up both sides is for a super being to actually appear and prove it is what it says it is. That is the only way we can have pure certainty on this matter.

[dbes02]

Why is it that even if there is a supernatural creator (although how we could be in it's image is a mystery - of course), why would it order the wife to be ruled by her husband? If humans have been given morality by this creator, why do so many of us see as immoral the very morals espoused in a book supposedly inspired by this creator?

[dbes02]

Science does show the biological foundation for our morality. The brain is biological and is loaded with instincts, genetically programmed, and cognitive abilities. Morals are human inventions, from a biological brain. And our morals are influenced by our instincts, the culture we grow up in, and our reasoning. Nothing false about it. The evidence supports it. Five dimensions of human morality, giving quite a range of moral codes. Were perfectly able to reason against our instincts.

[dbes02]

Where is objective morality?

Rape, child abuse are carried out by people. The 'deep down' are subjective, not objective. Why can't they be biologically based? Animals other than humans care for their young, and are upset if their young get lost.

Craig confuses he individual's morality (some people commit rape) with the group's morality (rape in this society is a crime).

Where is the objectivity? From evolution?

[Saibomb]

objectivity comes from God's nature.

[dbes02]

Objectivity comes from God's nature?

And why couldn't objectivity therefore come from our nature. Like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the idea of morality by John Stuart Mill in his On Liberty: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

The problem for you starts when you look at the morality espoused by this God as depicted in the Bible. Or should it be the Quran?

[dbes02]

I'm quite surprised to see people so convinced by the 'moral argument' for God (such as emopeacekid below and CS Lewis).

If it's an issue of 'where does morality come from - it must be from God', then how is this not just an argument from ignorance? Research clearly shows a biological foundation for morality and the way we make moral decisions. And it takes but a brief look at the morality of the God of the Bible to turn any argument that this is absolute morality into irrational nonsense.

[Saibomb]

Huh? You were asking where objective morality comes from, and I said it comes from God. If God exits, than it's perfectly acceptable to assume he is the foundation of objective moral values.

.

[Saibomb]

Your comment on morality coming from nature for (1) doesn't answer how it is therefore objective and (2) it does nothing to show why objective morality doesn't come from God. You're committing that lovely genetic fallacy. Just because our morals came from evolution does not imply that objective morality doesn't exist

[dbes02]

I don't claim that there are objective morals.

Anything COULD come from God - but where is the evidence for this God, how does this make morality objective, and how are moral judgements factual in the way that water is H2O?

I'm not committing a genetic fallacy. I'm merely pointing to an explanation for morality. one that has physical evidence, not make-believe.

[dbes02]

If objective morality comes from a God, then it's not objective. If it really was objective it would be independent of humans and gods and whatever else.

But where is the evidence for this objective morality, that a moral judgement is as factual as 2+2=4?

If God exists (I like you're typing error - if God exits), then She/He/It could be responsible for all sorts of things - but those things don't support Her/His/Its existence - for that, you need evidence.

[jonhickman123]

'Research clearly shows a biological foundation for morality'

dbes im becoming quite a fan of your 'arguments'. just what reseach shows a 'biological foundation'. there is no chemistry or gene outlined as the force of 'morality'. there is no such research. if there is PROVE IT and show us.

[dbes02]

I'm glad that you are a fan of my arguments. Very sensible.

Why do I have to show a gene as the force of morality? Evidence from different fields can converge to support a hypothesis.

All the evidence we have supports that our minds are based on a physical brain. Studies in neuroscience shows that moral decision making requires a balance between parts of the brain that are involved in rational thinking and parts that relate to emotions. Break the balance (eg injury) and it goes horribly wrong.

[dbes02]

Activities in a physical brain show that morality is a biological function - a product of a physical brain, and in line with the predictions of evolutionary biology and cognitive science.

Sober & Wilson, and de Waal, have convincingly shown that kin selection and reciprocal altruism provide the necessary building blocks for a naturalistic understanding of morality - not just for humans but for other animals too.

[jonhickman123]

our brain is what controls our physical body, of course our brain will show activity when we do ANYTHING. from decision making to feeling happy etc. different parts of the brain communicate different things to the body. finding brain activity when decisions are made doesnt answer where morality comes from at all. it just finds the parts of the brain deals with decision making.

[dbes02]

Evolutionary biology shows where the moral sense/instinct came from. And the evidence from neuroscience about the brain's decision making processes, and what happens when different parts of the brain are damaged, shows how morality works in the human brain. It's a product of the brain.

[jonhickman123]

im sorry but morality is not simply animal cooperation/rules with the incentive of community benefits. morality goes further than 'scratch my back and ill scratch yours' or 'dont do that to me and i wont to you'. morality works on an individual basis. there isnt always a community benefit. morality for eg. tells me to stay the given hours in my job even if it effects no one and i would still get paid if i left early.

[dbes02]

Who said that morality is only about community benefits? From an evolutionary biological context it's about the genes. The genes can also be benefitted at the level of the individual person. But remember, morality involves right and wrong thoughts and behaviours in context of the rules of a social group. How can you say that breaking the contract of working the hours that you're supposed wont affect anyone? It affects you...

[dbes02]

You could lose your job, you don't get a reference and you find it more difficult to get another job. It affects your reputation, and hence your chances of succeeding in the group. This is still within reciprocal altruism. People learn who the cheats are (one of the roles of gossip and establishing a reputation), you're not trusted. Natural selection will favour tendencies to remember obligations, bear grudges, police exchanges, and punish cheats. It's a Darwinian world.

[jonhickman123]

omg. in my example i said that no one would find out; so i wouldnt loose my job. and that it wouldnt affect anyone. that is possible you know-or dont you work? pay attention. ie the only reason i stay is out of sheer moral conviction.

you want to know whether YOUR morality is about community benefits or not? well YOU mentioned 'reciprocal altruism' lol perhaps you should actually learn what something means before you say it!

[dbes02]

No, you didn't say "no one would find out". But regardless, you acknowledge that in this situation you stay out of moral conviction. You prove the whole point. The system will punish cheats so it is about personal benefit as well.

Reciprocal altruism is a biological foundation of morality and you had said nothing that challenges it.

So once again you show the incoherence of your argument. Not quite at the same level of nonsense as your argument regarding the Bible. But getting there.

[jonhickman123]

if our morals derive from only a basic evolutionarily dictated instinct that means that we will treat others in a way that will benefit society and so us, then why doenst this instinct lead us to destroy all people with genes that are not of benefit to society. or perhaps stop them from spreading their genes? why do people think its morally wrong to experiment on animals for the benefit of our race? this wouldnt halm the animal population or ours? try and explain that.

[dbes02]

I didn't say our morals derive ONLY from a "basic evolutionary dictated instinct". it's not just one instinct, and it's not only instinct - learning from your culture is involved as well. There is clearly a biological FOUNDATION to morality. And neuroscience shows emotion and rational thinking involved in moral decision making. So reason comes into it too.

[jonhickman123]

"Activities in a physical brain show that morality is a biological function - a product of a physical brain" i pointed out that just because you see activity, it doesnt tell you the REASON that the activity is there.

you then talked that sober and wilson have uncovered the reason that we have these things. i questioned this reasoning and firstly you havnt even tried to answer the questioning, only tried to find flaws in the anaolgy i gave.

[jonhickman123]

..but your attempt was ridicolous: the fact remains that is IS possible to leave work early without anyone finding out and with no implications or effect on anyone. many people would still feel guitly. WHY?

secondly you appeard to not even understand the studies that you mentioned. how can i take you seriously after that? - as usual you didnt even take note when i picked you up on this.

[dbes02]

My response was perfectly sensible - the fact that you are saying people would feel guilty is the moral sense of right/wrong at play. In leaving early you run the risk of being caught and your reputation for keeping to the exchange of pay for work being spoilt - which impacts on you.

Humans are full of instincts, including the moral instinct. The brain is modular and different instincts compete, which has the effect of different outcomes in different situations.

[jonhickman123]

er the conditions (that are resonable) are that you wont get caught (thats what no one will find out means), and no one will be affected. ie it would make no differentce to ANYONE.

'including the moral instinct' didnt you just say that morals are learned?

[dbes02]

So you won't get caught, so you do it. But you still feel guilty. And what's the reason you feel guilty? Moral instinct.

A moral instinct isn't speciyfing morals, in the same way that the language instinct doesn't specify the language.

[jonhickman123]

ok then, call it 'moral instinct' instead of 'Morals'. lol if that makes you feel better (or like youve somehow explained something). so now w'eve got round that; answer my question. you assert that our morals derive from evolution and only evolution? right? and youve got this from the studies that you mentioned but appeared to not know what they mean. right?

[dbes02]

There's a big difference between moral instinct - a sense of right/wrong - and the complexity of specific morals that are developed. I haven't confused them but you seem to have a very odd understanding of the issues. There are many other instincts

Moral instinct derives from evolution. Moral dimensions of care, fairness, in-group, authority, and sanctity are part of the instinct.

The studies show what they show - a biological foundation for morality. A naturalistic account.

[jonhickman123]

you seem to have trouble understanding what i say. do you or do you not state that our morals are only derived via evolution, and they are only there as a direct result of the evolution process that passes on the genes that benefit?

[dbes02]

You have trouble expressing yourself.

No, our morals are not only derived via evolution. Our moral instincts, and other instincts derive from evolution. Our particular morals are strongly influenced by culture, and also by our reasoning.

[jonhickman123]

'No, our morals are not only derived via evolution' precisely. and as i gather you would state that evolution is the way that our biology arrived, and that morality has a biological foundation then etell me how your are NOT contradicting yourself.

[dbes02]

Why would I claim that all morals come from evolution? And I haven't claimed this. The same way I wouldn't claim a specific language comes from evolution.

It's not difficult to understand - morality has a biological foundation, language has a biological foundation. We have a moral instinct. And we can see how the brain makes moral decisions.

I do hope you're learning something here.

[dbes02]

If I need to repeat myself I will.

Evolution is about the change in genetic material of a population of organisms. Certainly evolution has led to humans capable of inventing different languages and different moral codes, and all sorts of other things. But a human doesn't get born knowing a language. It has to learn it. A specific language is not in the genetic material. It's an invention of humans. Evolution has certainly been necessary to produce the instincts/abilities.

[dbes02]

Languages and morals wouldn't be here without the evolution that we see having occurred.

But it's important to distinguish between what is strictly innate and what is invented or learnt..

I realise you don't seem to like this sort of fine detail.

[jonhickman123]

'I realise you don't seem to like this sort of fine detail.' hmmm

yea so your saying that morals are learnt and therefore made up by humans, is that what your saying?

[dbes02]

Yes, morals are made up by humans, influenced by instincts. That's what the evidence supports

Of course may be you have some other hypothesis.

[jonhickman123]

so you support the notion that a baby born with no teacher would grow up with no morals? no sense of right and wrong? wouldnt feel guilt about lying, wouldnt feel guilty for breaking rules, wouldnt feel guilty about hurting someone, or taking something away from somone?

so you suggest that the first time a child disobeys their parents without previous teaching/scenario, they would not display or feel any guilt?

[dbes02]

No, a sense of right/wrong is one of our instincts, and instincts account for basic behaviours such caring for young. And we have mirror neurons which respond to the emotional states of others.

Why are you going backwards. We've been through the instinctual moral sense

[jonhickman123]

im not going backwards.

ahh well im glad you didnt support that notion. so your saying that we instinctively know right from wrong (according to what our morals tell us) but a second ago you said that morals are learnt like a language. which one is it?

[dbes02]

We have a sense of right and wrong, but this is not from our moral - it's from our instincts. But exactly what we consider is right/wrong is largely influenced by the group we grow up in . Just like we learn the language of the group.

It isn't an either or - it's both, working together.

A child growing up away from a group would not learn a group's rules - and a child growing up in one group will learn a lot of very different rules.

[dbes02]

You only have to look at the substantial differences in morals between groups and over time to see how strongly our morals are influenced by the group.

[dbes02]

Another aspect of how moral instinct can't possibly tell the whole story is that whatever instinct you choose, there will situations where it's countered. Even caring for your child can get trumped (eg infanticide in harsh conditions, or sacrificing a child to the gods).

So while there is a innate sense of right/wrong, exactly what is considered right or wrong is very flexible.

[dbes02]

But i'd be interested in hearing your view on where our morals come from. We're certainly capable of inventing moral codes. And we can see how our moral instinct can have developed naturalistically.

But how would you explain Christians killing other Christians over differences in specific beliefs? Killings that were not considered murder. Each group believed what they believed, but not a good outcome for those who believed something different from the group that was in power.

[jonhickman123]

i agree, people can even go against their conscience to do wrong things, but basic untarnished human morals are similar world wide. there may have been cultural developments that lead to different rules, which to break may be immoral. but the overall moral sense from one child to another is remarkable similar. i dont see how you think you achieve anything greater by pointing out that 'christians' have gone against their own beliefs. infact when you do point this out it suggest you do believe...

[jonhickman123]

...in a general un-taught moral code. after all why is it NOT wrong for the christians to do so? you cant argue that people have an instinctual sense of right and wrong but WHAT is deemed right/wrong is base upon cutlural teaching....when you DO get twisted morals, you can bet that most of the people enslaved by them KNOW that its wrong but feel that they cant do anything about it. some people trick themselves into ignoring moral clashes for the same of their overiding cultural sense.

[jonhickman123]

i see it that we DO have an instinctual moral code; we are born with a conscience (interesting word) that directs us so remarkably similar from human to human. i think that we also have traits that encorage us to go against this conscience. anger, greed, jealousy, distrust. i put it that where a moral code has leaked into society (that to you and me seems immoral), it is due to one of these traits. forced femal circumcision; distrust mixed with unfaithfulness (at a guess)..

[jonhickman123]

i assert that the morals of the human race are mostly instinctual, but any reason for these changing is due to our other traits (as i mentioned). what i see is that there is no way you can claim that science has found HOW we got these morals. you can relay theory, but to claim that we now know that morals came about thus, as if it is for certain is purely false. claiming that morals have a biological foundation is either misleading or false, depending on what you mean by it.

[dbes02]

Where did I say that Christians have gone against their own beliefs? They have different beliefs. Thats my point. The all think they have absolute morality and truth . They were acting perfectly in line with the sanctity dimension of morality.

[dbes02]

Of course I can argue that people have an instinctual moral sense, and that what is deemed right and wrong is influenced substantially by culture, as well as reason. That's what the evidence supports (remember the neuroscientific research on moral decision making - emotions and rational thinking). What are "twisted" morals? Ones you don't agree with? If we've an instinct not to kill our own group, is it "twisted" to kill group members who take on different beliefs (e.g. the golden calf)?

[dbes02]

Mirror neurons that make us empathise with the emotional displays of others can hardly be considered "moral". The instinct to care for children is not "moral". It is part of amoral nature. It is part of the biological foundation of human morality. It leads to the development of moral codes by humans, but values arent attached to the processes. The processes/mechanism LEAD to development of moral codes but thats us putting values.

[jonhickman123]

erm, please do your research my friend. it is even debatable whether huamans even have mirror neurons. it is cirtainly not widely accepted as fact. it is a new area of study and to use it to support your claim is just daft.

[dbes02]

The genius of neuroscience is way ahead of you. More and more evidence for the way in which the brain works - including mirror neurons - showing how our thoughts and decisions are in the functioning of the brain. It's all based on a physical brain.

But I thought you'd happy about all this, being such a genetic determinist.

[jonhickman123]

'The genius of neuroscience is way ahead of you' lol in waht sense exactly? lol

the study simply views 'activity' in the brain when watching/performing actions. look, the day you started worshiping the scientists (not science itself) was the day you gave up the sense that they have. if understanding the brain and life was a journey, they have barely put on their shoes to walk accross the universe. life may teach you this one day, but it will not be a happy day for you or anyone.

[dbes02]

Once again jonhickman123 sinks into red herrings. If he wants to show evidence that the mind is not a product of a physical brain he is welcome to. There has never been good evidence for dualism - only an argument from ignorance.

Science works by building theories to account for the the evidence in a rational way. As in brain science.

A genetic determinist would lap this up.

Life has taught that religious belief , like belief in fairies, is nonsense. For some, it's a tough lesson to learn.

[jonhickman123]

'Once again jonhickman123 sinks into red herrings' so how exatcly am i diverting attention? im not throwing out anything irrelevant...is this your idea of refute? 'red herring, red herring, adhom attack adhom attack' the comments i make are entirely to do with what we are talking about.

'Life has taught that religious belief , like belief in fairies, is nonsense' OK then mrs EVIDENCE. wheres the EVIDENCE for that wild assumption.

[dbes02]

Yes, red herrings as in irrelevant comments. Another of your ongoing fallacies.

And there you go again with your penchant for misquoting.

There is no evidence - that's why religious belief is on the same level as belief in fairies.

[jonhickman123]

what? mis quoting? i copied and pasted it from YOUR statement. either i have a penchant for misquoting or your so deluded that you believe the copy/paste function on my computer has a penchant for mis-copying. and as i assumed you would, you gave no actual argument and made no reference to evidence. you stated that ''Life has taught that religious belief...'' i asked for evidence for that claim and instead you go on about misquoting. wheres the EVIDENCE?

[dbes02]

'red herring, red herring, adhom attack adhom attack'

There is no evidence for religious beliefs. There is no evidence of fairies. How do I show that there are no fairies?

[jonhickman123]

lol my dear, are you really suggesting that you think that when i wrote that it was meant to be a direct quote? although to be fair, it is amost a direct quote as pretty much everytime i write an opinion, or use an analogy you do indeed squeel 'red herring ah hom' etc. those are the words you use. but using this to say that all i do is misquote is pathetic. ps the use of the word 'pathetic' here is a description not adhom ok?

[dbes02]

Are they are or they not direct quotes? And off you go showing your neurosis again.

[dbes02]

I don't use the words "ad hom".

So your approach is pathetic.

[jonhickman123]

oh really? what word do you use then?

[dbes02]

Ad hominem.

[jonhickman123]

ooohhhhhh so you cant even realise when someone cuts back a word. i see. Ad hominem, she used 'Ad hominem' ladies and gents. whooo she wins. you WIN i give up i cant argue with that. apparently shortening a word for the sake of laziness is misquoting. lol pathetic. is that all you can say, 'i didnt use ad hom anyway, i used 'Ad hominem' hahah your a joke.

[dbes02]

Once again you need to pay attention to detail. Very important in debating.

[jonhickman123]

once again you need to get a grip on reality; people cut words! it saves time and space. looser.

[dbes02]

I haven't seen a word 'looser' before. I've seen 'loser'. If you're talking about CUTTING words, you're now contradicting yourself by LENGTHENING words.

[jonhickman123]

'you're now contradicting yourself '

do you even know what a contradiction is?

ps so what i made a typo. thats what happens when you rush comments after getting tired of talking to a retard who claims to have a degree but doenst even know what a contradiction is. to contradict myself i would have to say that a = b and only b. and then later on say that a =c and only c.

[dbes02]

Contradiction. Incompatibility between two or more propositions.

[jonhickman123]

exactly, a spelling mistake isnt a 'position' you cretin

[dbes02]

Just keep on with your childish whining. It befits your infantile delusions.

[jonhickman123]

yea thats right, thats all you can say isnt it. you lose everytime so you just say something like that. you cant defend your position or make an argument. basically you know its not a contradiction. anyone with the ability to write should know that. you have nothing left to say apart from 'childish whining' etc becasue you have no argument left. each time you try i destroy it so you change topic or make a coward's statement.

[dbes02]

Unfortunately for jonhickman123, his irrationaly position can't stand up to reason and logic. And now, all he can do is parrot back what someone else has written. He chose to go off at a tangent to protect his infantile system of belief - thrrowing a tantrum and saying he won't be coming back - like a little spoilt child.

Religious belief of all kinds shares the same intellectual respectability, evidential base, and rationality as belief in the existence of fairies. In other words - nonsense.

[jonhickman123]

dbes is a genious who doesnt even know whaty contradiction means, and cant use the term correctly.

[dbes02]

Yes, people do think of me as a genius. Finally an insightful comment from jonhickman123.

[dbes02]

Contradiction, as in how does the so-called religion of love, Christianity, have the blood stained record of any other world religion, and have caused more undeserved misery than any other world religion?

[jonhickman123]

as tempting as it is to help right your naive view(s). there really is no point. you clearly wish to remain a fool.

[dbes02]

jonhickman123 doesn't seem to realise that by being abusive he removes all credibility from what he has to say (which is very little anyway), and shows his inability to form a rational position. But then that's the cornerstone of religious belief - irrationality. He threatens to produce an argument (as if he could) but remains buried in immaturity.

[dbes02]

jonhickman123 is tempted - sounds like he's about to commit a sin. be careful - apparently there's a bit bearded old guy up in the sky who's the biggest homicidal maniac ever devised, a pure psychopath who orders the painful deat of millions of poor children, and lets milliions of others suffer because of the incompetent universe he created. An evil bungler of the highest magnitude.

[jonhickman123]

uh huh.

[dbes02]

Like you said - it's all laughing out loud now.

But at least you managed to write something that wasn't a fallacy. Well done.

[6thwing]

@dbes02 So, you agree that God exists? That's a good first step towards sanity from absurdity. Secondly, you imply that the destruction of something you make is 'evil' (is that you're point?). If you destroy a drawing you made, is it evil that you did that?

Or are you saying that God wouldn't have people killed? On what basis would you even begin to believe that? Or that people won't suffer? What basis would you even begin to believe that? Use logic. And then make your point.

[dbes02]

@6thwing In what brand ethics is a drawing given the same moral consideration as a human? But Christians will send anyone who doesn't believe their delusions to hell - so you just show yourself an irrational hypocrite. No evidence for any of the 1000s of gods people have made up - gods/goddesses in the same bin of make-believe as fairies. Did I say that there'd be no killing or suffering? If you want to use logic, start by coherently addressing what has been said, instead of sprouting nonsense.

[6thwing]

@dbes02 Moral consideration from who's point of view? Ours or Gods? Or what, do you liken God to be equal with man? Of course not. Do you liken Man to be equal with it's creations? Of course not. Silly argument, man.

And yes, there is evidence for God. God exists by necessity, like how values do. Listen:

1) Everything that exists is here by CAUSE or NECESSITY.

2) Anything affected by time must have been CAUSED

3) The Universe is affected by time

*conclusions in next post; character limit*

[6thwing]

@6thwing Therefore, The Universe must have been CAUSED.

4) Things cannot cause themselves

Therefore, the Universe did not cause itself. But what can cause the Universe if it's not part of the Universe?

5) The Universe is Matter, Space, Time, Energy, and the laws that bind it together

Therefore, that which 'caused' the Universe must wholly transcend Matter, Space, Time, Energy and the natural Laws of the Universe. Such an entity is called God.

[dbes02]

@6thwing If something is necessary then you have to show it to be so. And not your blatantly circual argument where the universe is both (a) explained by your particular magic man in the sky, and (b) also evidence for this magic man. If something can't cause itself then a god must have been caused. You get nowhere in your childish claims. Who's claiming the universe caused itself? Our state of the universe is a physical one. The genius of science has taken us back to the Planck era. Stay tuned!

[6thwing]

@dbes02 And finally, use logic. God is necessary? Why? Because the UNIVERSE HAS A CAUSE. That which causes the Universe has to be TRANSCENDENT of the Universe.

That which is transcendent of the Universe is called God. Now If you think this is wrong, show me; I used deductive logic, that is, if you agree with my premises, then the conclusion (whether you like it or not) MUST be true. So what is your problem? You think 1)the Universe did NOT begin? Or 2)that Things that begin DON'T have a cause?

[dbes02]

@6thwing If the universe has a cause how did a magic man get in the picture? In logic (please read about it) this is a non-sequitur, and a bare assertion of a magic man. Until you have evidence for a cause, and the nature of the cause, all you have a circular argument for a "god". Intelligent design argument is self-contradictory: it posits intelligence needs to be designed, but then the designer is designed! There was never a time when the universe was not here - why does it need to "begin"?

[s1lvrinferno]

@dbes02 can you create something out of nothing? thought not........

[dbes02]

@s1lvrinferno OK, so the idea that a magic man in the sky created the world from nothing is therefore rubbish. Fine. However, you can't just make things up -- someone can't just say "we don't know how X came about, therefore it was a magic man in the sky". The concept of a magic man in the sky has thesame intellectual credibility and evidence base as belief in fairies -- nil.

[anyelina5]

@6thwing That's not true. The universe CAN'T BE CAUSED because TIME CAN'T BE CREATED WITHOUT TIME, and all universe is SPACE/TIME. If you are saying that the universe MUST have been caused, then god also MUST have been caused using that same argument. If you affirm that god doesn't have a cause or this doesn't apply to your god; PROVE IT. But not with simple speculations or suppositions.

[dbes02]

@6thwing Well there is no evidence for a god to start with. But to humour you... Morality is subjective. A god's morality is subjective, a human's morality is subjective. If you want to defend a particular moral code then you need to argue rationally about it. So do you think that slaughtering captured civilians is morally right?

If humans did create a lifeform, then why couldn't the lifeform be treated as an equal, ethically? Rather silly attempted argument from you.

[dbes02]

So jonhickman123 once again threatens to leave the stage. But as in the past, will he yet return?

Sort of reminds of the way the mythical Jesus is said to have threatened to come back soon - probably just trying to scare people - but obviously history has shown that he broke his word.

[jonhickman123]

..ps if your going to say that life has shown religious beliefs to be nonsense then you are talking about something that has been shown by 'life'. not that things simply dont exist. you say that life has shown the belief to be nonsense; so therefore it has been shown; you have to say how. you have to use a theory, based upon evidence. dont worry, i know you cant beacuse your statement was based upon nothing but a whim.

[dbes02]

Science.

[dbes02]

But the Australian Aborigines may have got it right in their Dream Time in which ancestral totemic spirit beings formed the creation.

[dbes02]

"but basic untarnished human morals are similar world wide"

Exactly what does this mean? The whole point is that they are not similar - you again confuse similarity of concept (e.g. murder) with similarity of what is defined as murder. Untarnished by what? In fact the very basis of the Christian story, Adam and Eve, positively oozes with how tarnished we are so to say that we are deep down so wonderful makes nonsense of the Christian worldview.

[dbes02]

But lets look at your claim that the overall moral sense from one child to another is remarkably similar. Yes, the behaviour of children shows how the moral instinct is innate, but the extent of their morals is limited, and some instinctual drives do not necessarily seem wonderful. Children instinctually calibrate to the group around them so that someone that is different seems out of place. Someone who talks differently is out of place, not part of the group.

[jonhickman123]

yes their moral instinct is innate and it IS similar no matter what untouched tribe you visit. yes children also go against their own morals, and thats when they feel guilty.

[dbes02]

I'm surprised to see you're so much of a genetic determinist. I thought you wouldn't like to put so much into the product of evolution through natural selection.

Yet the reality is that nature can't work without nurture. Children grow up with other children and adults, and we're not seeing them grow up devoid of any human contact. A child will be perfectly selfish if you let them.

[dbes02]

Did people who kept slaves including some of the founding fathers - REALLY feel guilty about it? Do all Muslim men who insist on their wives wearing burkhas REALLY feel guilty? Its rather naïve to think that they do. Does an omnivore feel guilty because they eat animals? After all, we evolved to be omnivores. Does a vegetarian feel guilty because they don't want to eat animals? Does someone who wants to kill homosexuals really feel guilty? What about drowning everyone in a flood?

[dbes02]

Once again. The DIMENSIONS of morality are similar (the five I described) but the implementation is VERY different. Of course I can argue that we have an instinctual sense of right and wrong but WHAT is deemed right/wrong is based upon more than just instincts. That is what we see. And we see how so much of the morality of the Bible has no place in a modern, secular humanist society.

[dbes02]

So what if activity in the brain doesn't tell you the reason for it being there? The brain is biological, built through evolution. It's encoded in the DNA. Decision making is a function of the brain activity. Moral decisions are a function of brain activity. It doesn't need a reason - it is an observation.

Morality: involving right and wrong thoughts and beahvours in context of the rules of a social group. The research is perfectly adequate in showing the biological foundation of morality.

[jonhickman123]

'So what if activity in the brain doesn't tell you the reason for it being there' lol well when you claim that biology is the FOUNDATION for morality (which you did) then you are saying so what to your own statement.

[dbes02]

Studies across different cultures show 5 dimensions to human moral systems: Care, Fairness, In-group, Authority, Sanctity. Morality is not just about instinct but also influenced by culture. Our more modern, secular cultures emphasise care and fairness. With an in-group much wider than anything that stoneage man could imagine. The in-group gets cast wide and we care for much more than a little tribe.

[dbes02]

We have a brain structure (mirror neurons) that literally makes us empathise with others around us, to feel distress, to feel happiness, to feel sadness. So why shouldn't we feel sorry for a life form that is suffering whether it be a disabled person or a caged animal? It's multi-dimensional, and your reference to 'benefit to society' doesn't automatically slot in to all dimensions.

But we do see examples of the things you raise - look no further than the genocides depicted in the Bible.

[dbes02]

And clearly moral codes change, develop, evolve. That's an interesting trend. Instinct plus culture plus changing social structures and technology etc. Things change, and social systems have to change to.

The concept of the golden rule turns up in many cultures. Its a product of our moral instinct, and it goes some way to answering your very question.

And how would experimenting on animals not harm the animals?

[dbes02]

So why do we see examples of groups who do "destroy all people with genes that are not of benefit to society"? For example the genocides reported in the Bible - on the orders of God Herself. Animosity towards the outgroup also can be seen to have a biological foundation. But then as were are made in God's image, She most likely has a biological foundation for Her morality.

[jonhickman123]

'Activities in a physical brain show that morality is a biological function'

morality isnt a biological function. like i said;of course there is activity in the brain. if it was just biological then why would you be able to teach it? you cant verbally teach someones dna to function differently in 5 minutes, so why can you alter/teach morals by talking to someone? clearly the activity is a sign of morality taking place, but the activity isnt the REASON of the activity; that doesnt make sense.

[dbes02]

Where is anyone teaching DNA?

The biological foundation for morality is in kin selection and reciprocal altruism. Makes perfect sense.

And learning has a biological foundation as well.

[Saibomb]

Objective morality comes from God - it is irrelevant whether our own subjective morality was somehow shaped by evolution.

[dbes02]

If there is a god and this god decides on what is moral, then it is subjective.

[Saibomb]

ok whatever, we get our obligations and moral standards from God. He is the foundation of morality. is that better?

[dbes02]

The foundation of morality is in biology. Our obligations are defined by the laws of the land. A naturalistic account with lots evidence, unlike religious belief.

[emopeacekid]

The moral argument is so powerful for God it is what convinced CS Lewis from atheism to Theism.

[jdquarg]

Even if Jesus didn't die and been resurrected does that take away from what he said?

The simplest solution is the best solution.

If you asked me, I mean "if" you did. Pilate seemed pretty pissed. Probable had one of his own and pulled Jesus off the cross. One idea. Cause if you accept the resurrection, you have to accept Adam / Eve / Dinosaurs / bad apples, then the Noahs's Ark, Tower of Babel, Exodus, Sodom / Gomorrah, etc, and then you have to accept Todd Bentley.

Ouch :(

[TheAmazingCristian]

Ever heard of Theistic Evolution

[jdquarg]

I have just Wikied it. Interesting, but.. You still are going to but heads with the Ken Ham crowd. There is a group called "old earth creationism" run by a guy named Hugh Ross. He debated Ken Ham, don't know if there is a audio archive.

Plenty of Youtuber's think of creation in as 6 day / 24 hour period.

Done...

[TheAmazingCristian]

My point was, accepting the ressurection and denying evolution don't have to be simultaneous

[christujesu]

if pilate pulled jesus off the cross, well then to quell the christian uprising, why didnt he produce the body ?