TedM

Ok. I may not fully appreciate the role of morals in an evolutionary context. It may be that their role is to 'further life' through the enhancement of the quality of life. It may well be that morals too evolved and that they really are good things and they don't need God in order to exist. I may be dead wrong on this issue..will think about it more. Thanks.

TedM

Sorry, I don't see anything confusing. Let's try this example: Say you are watching a mechanic put together a winning racecar from scratch. You may not understand why he puts in certain parts or arranges them a certain way or what each part is designed for. But when you see the finished product go around the racetrack at 200+ mph, it isn't hard to conclude that the mechanic is very smart when it comes to building cars.

Similarly, we don't have to know why the Creator does things in order to conclude that our Creator must be highly intelligent.

turning in for the evening. Have a good night..

MrMacSon

I do not position morals in an evolutionary context: morals & wider ethics have undoubtedly developed & progressed, but not so much biologically as 'society-wise' and 'civilly'.

outhouse

so what exactly are you attributed to a deity with this this creation pseudoscience????



now your defining him as intelligent based on what exactly?

what you dont understand about human anatomy and evolution?

ignorance again Ted ? or more imagination??

spin

This question shows me that you are still not reading what I said. So, not only do you not seem interested in knowing whether you're talking nonsense, you also don't seem to be interested in reading what I actually said. You have persistently failed to acknowledge the content of what I've said to you. You'll note I didn't ask you whether you were deluded or not, but whether you had any way of showing yourself, or knowing. Here, your question "What did I say that is nonsense?" is simply a non sequitur regarding the post you purport to respond to. If you go back over our conversation here, you rarely respond in a way directly related to what you apparently intend to respond to.

If you won't take the Nash test, you have no way of knowing about what you are talking about: you seem to assume that which you don't know to be real, and proceed to make untestable statements about that which you don't know. It's fine to speculate, but that's not what you are doing. You are making claims that you stand by regarding possible delusions you refuse to confirm through dispassionate means, yet you treat as real. How are you qualitatively different from Nash?

TedM

Spin, as I understood it we already know the results of 'taking the Nash test', and I've told you that I can't prove what I believe to be true, so why are you continuing to ask me to 'take the test'?

Just because one can't prove something doesn't mean one can't make reasonable claims with regard to it.

That's what happens in courts of law every day. Yet, you are sitting there telling me that I might be deluded because I don't have a video proof of it. Is that what judges say regarding all testimony in court? No.

The evidence is that God, if he exists, is smarter than us because we don't know how he did it. We can't 'hiccup' and create a universe, nor do we know how he could have done it. We can't put into motion evolutionary processes that are 'self-governing', nor do we know how he could have done it. The evidence is the own utter inability of man to figure out how God did all of these things, and then to do them ourselves. I don't need a bible or anything else as 'proof' of this alleged God's intelligence. It's obvious, and only a few folks like you don't agree for reasons I can't make any sense out of.

As to knowing the mind of God, it's a fact: We don't know God's reasons for doing or not doing things. If we knew, we wouldn't be speculating, right? This is so obvious to not even require any analysis. It's a reasonable claim then that we can't know the mind of God. I don't mean can't in the sense that we are incapable intellectually of EVER knowing, but rather in the sense that we are incapable NOW because we don't even have any ability to know anything about him, including whether he really does exist or not.

While it may sound as though I'm not speculating, I am. It's just that I am stating things strongly because the evidence is so strong. Not for his existence, but for what we can say about him IF he does exist.

Regarding his existence it comes down to whether you are going to break from science and say that Cause and Effect doesn't apply to the universe, or whether you are going to break from science and say that Cause and Effect must not apply to God himself, if he does exist. I prefer the latter.

TedM

I don't really understand that. I think evolutionary biologists likely say that all social behavior has an evolutionary purpose.

I have thought more about the issue, and I still do find a significant difference that elevates the theist absolute morals above those of the atheist. The difference is in accountability. With atheism, while one may truly be a good and loving person, another may not be but can get away with it, and benefit at the expense of others. There is no justice in such a case. With theism, justice prevails in the end. I'm not suggesting the Christian fire and brimstone, burn in hell forever, theology that some believe in though. But the morality of right and wrong--to REALLY to what is right, is only perfectly enforceable under the theistic worldview. This gives it a 'higher purpose' which is superior.

outhouse

what reasonable claims


your not making reasonable claims


fantsay and imagination and ignorance is what we are seeing

aa5874

Your theistic worldview is complete utter BS. You have already implied that Agnosticism is the best option so why are you continuing on a known flawed path void of reason and explanation??

It is known that Human beings make Laws to govern or control human behaviour.

Effevtively, only human beings make Laws.

TedM

For anyone: AJ Ayer, the atheist founder of Positivism said after a near death experience that he hopes he won't live on after death. I find that to be a most extraordinary statement. Is that typical of the atheist mindset? I thought everyone wanted to live forever..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._Ayer