Come one, Come all... Prove God doesn't exist, I'll prove you wrong. - Page 15

NotReady · #**141** 04-20-2005, 09:22 PM

Several problems:

1. How can chance produce ultimate purpose? If chance is ultimate then by definition the universe is irrational.
2. If the universe is 5 billion years old (or 5 trillion for that matter), the time frame isn't infinite. Also, even given abiogenesis on earth, since most scientists believe the planet was uninhabitable for several million years, there is a very limited time frame for the first primitive life form to morph into us.
3 If life evolved from non-life on earth, the sample size is anything but enormous. Even if you include all the atoms of the known universe, some calculations show the sample size is quite small.

IronUnkind · #**142** 04-20-2005, 10:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, that's not how morality works. The part of your brain that does morality, if it is functioning correctly, will judge adultery to be immoral. There may be other parts of your brain that will approve of your committing adultery, but it's only the morality part that matters when we're trying to figure out what's moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

You contradict yourself here. If there are other parts of my brain which "approve" of adultery, then they are, by definition, part of the brain's morality function.

A further problem is how to distinguish between moral behavior and normative behavior. What happened in Nazi Germany that allowed the citizenry to give their approval (tacit or otherwise) to the murder of Jews? Was there a mass malfunction in German brain function?

maurile · #**143** 04-20-2005, 10:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, that's not how morality works. The part of your brain that does morality, if it is functioning correctly, will judge adultery to be immoral. There may be other parts of your brain that will approve of your committing adultery, but it's only the morality part that matters when we're trying to figure out what's moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

You contradict yourself here. If there are other parts of my brain which "approve" of adultery, then they are, by definition, part of the brain's morality function.

[/ QUOTE ]
No I don't and no they aren't. They are part of your lust function. (Or whatever.)

Your brain does lots of different things. Only some of it qualifies as doing morality.

[ QUOTE ]
A further problem is how to distinguish between moral behavior and normative behavior. What happened in Nazi Germany that allowed the citizenry to give their approval (tacit or otherwise) to the murder of Jews? Was there a mass malfunction in German brain function?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm no psychologist, but I suspect a bunch of things happened. One is that the Nazi leaders did a good job of dehumanizing the Jews through their propaganda and rhetoric. (Probably similar to the dehumanization of negro slaves in America.) Another is that their sense of nationalism overrode (or weakened) their sense of empathy. Probably a bunch of other factors as well.

gasgod · #**144** 04-20-2005, 11:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You require as much faith as any religious person. You can't know there is no God. You can't know there is any meaning or purpose to life. It isn't that there's no evidence, but a matter of interpreting the evidence. Atheistic evolution requires at least as much faith as any religion. The gaps in evolution by chance are monumental, the unexplained and contradictory abound, and the theory mutates much faster than any species ever did. To believe something came from nothing and life came from non-life is a belief principle of the first order.

[/ QUOTE ]

Repeating the unsupportable assertion that I require faith doesn't make it true.

Your attack on evolution is just as pathetic. The genetic, morphological, and experimental evidence for evolution is overwhelming, but you reject it in favor of a religious belief that has no evidence at all. A sensible approach would be to modify your religious beliefs to accommodate what we know about the way the biological world operates, but that doesn't occur to you. The very term "atheistic evolution" has no more significance than "Christian bricklaying" or "Bhuddist cuisine". It is empty rhetoric.

GG

gasgod · #**145** 04-20-2005, 11:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's a question, not a suggestion. You like to ask for proof of God's existence. So what's the proof of your moral values?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are quite wrong. I would never ask for "proof" of god's existence. I would, however, be interested if you had compelling evidence for same. It is the believer, not the skeptic, who is obsessed with the quest for "proof".

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, who determines right and wrong? Do you think it's self-evident? What if someone thinks they have the right to molest children? More likely, child molesters don't think there's any such thing as right and wrong. Many of the Nazi war criminals didn't think they were doing anything wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Already answered. If a child molester believes what he does is moral, I will protect my children by incarcerating him. Simple. My moral values require no "proof". The same applies to the Nazis. The allies were under no obligation to "Prove" the morality of their cause. They protected themselves, nothing more. No individual, and no nation, is obligated to justify the imperitive for self preservation.

GG

theweatherman · #**146** 04-21-2005, 12:03 AM

How do you know there is any "ultimate purpose" at all? I think you presuppose a bit of theology when you mention this. If the ultimate purpose is to reproduce and survive then evolution has no problem accounting for this since that is what living thiungs do best, anyone which doesnt literally ceases to exist and with hope whatever fault lead to its demise. Other than reproduction and continued existence there seems to be no other ultimate or final cause in nature.

NotReady · #**147** 04-21-2005, 01:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I would never ask for "proof" of god's existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

My mistake, I thought that's what you meant here.

[ QUOTE ]

There is no evidence whatever. Only argument, conjecture and "faith". If there were actual evidence for any particular version of god, why are there so many religions?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

My moral values require no "proof".If a child molester believes what he does is moral, I will protect my children by incarcerating him.

[/ QUOTE ]

This equates to might makes right. You should cease making all moral judgments.

NotReady · #**148** 04-21-2005, 02:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]

A sensible approach would be to modify your religious beliefs to accommodate what we know about the way the biological world operates

[/ QUOTE ]

Which one?

[ QUOTE ]

The very term "atheistic evolution" has no more significance than "Christian bricklaying" or "Bhuddist cuisine". It is empty rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simply asserting that it's rhetoric doesn't make it so.

If you really want to debate evolution I have a couple of groundrules. Of course, you're not bound by them, but they are the conditions I have for this debate.

1. I don't care about white moths changing into black moths. I don't deny biological change. And though I don't believe it happened, I'm not that concerned about Cheetah changing into Napoleon. The issues are whether or not life happened by chance from non-life, and whether or not all biological life on earth has a common ancestor.

2. The real fundamental issue of evolution, and what has caused the acrimony since Darwin, is the unsupportable assertion that biological change occurs by chance. There were many Christians who believed in biological evolution pre-Darwin. They thought it was part of God's mechanism for creating and filling the earth. It's the idea of randomness in a Godless universe that is totally unscientific, but constantly preached by the priesthood of "science". And as they blithely assert the majesty of "Mother Nature" and the sublimity of "unintelligent design", they seem completely ignorant of the consequences of that belief.

NotReady · #**149** 04-21-2005, 02:15 AM

How do you know there is any "ultimate purpose" at all?

I can't prove it, and as you mention, I DO presuppose it. What's the alternative? The opposite of pupose. This inevitably leads to nihilism. Almost nobody really accepts nihilism as true. That doesn't prove it's false, but if you believe it there is simply nothing left to discuss. Also, even those who claim to believe it (Nietcheze,Sartre, etc.), never practice it. Full fledged nihilim leads to either complete amorality or suicide.

Most atheists and agnostics want to reject God because they fear judgment, but hang on to rationality because the alternative is unthinkable. But then if there is no God, there can be no rationality.

theweatherman · #**150** 04-21-2005, 05:23 AM

The purpose of evolution is to survive and pass on your genes nothing more. In this way the species grows stronger over time and becomes better at surviving and reproducing. This fulfilling its goal further. This is empirical and needs no presupposition since it is readily observable in nature. You seem to be hinting at a divine purpose, which you illogically presuppose as true.

I'm not sure most atheist reject God because they fear judgement since they would have to beilive in God in order to even enterain the idea of divine judgement. And what makes God the ultimate source of rationality? Mathematics is basically pure reason and it stands alone without God or even humans. The rational concept of 2+2=4 exists whether we like it or not and would even if God does not exist. I agree that the opposite of reason is unthinkable (i heard somewhere that hell is the absense of reason) but reason stands alone. Itcan be argues that God himself is bound by reason, can Jesus both walk on water and sink at the same time? this is a logical contradiction and defies all reason . So how is God's existence necessary for the existence of reason?