Where did God come from?

Why can't we get morality from ourselves? Why do we have to take the blind leap and say "because god gave it"? If what you are saying is true then everyone in the world would have to agree that murder or even rape is wrong. I am sorry to be the one to tell you this but many people view murder and rape as just things.Also if morality and justice are from god then why isn't every single atheist on a murdering spree? Or why did christens see no harm in the murder of thousands during the crusades. And even more importantly why does god order murder and rape in the OT.Our sense of justice and right and wrong come from experience not god. If you tell your kids that stealing is right and they don't get any punishment for doing so they will view stealing as a normal thing to do.

Why does morality prove God?It is pretty interesting how most of our morals seem to be inexorably linked up with reproduction...pornography
prostitution
rape
abortion
homosexuality
adultryWhy are these such a big deal to God?I think it is easier to explain why such morals would be important to an organism that relies on a protective group for survival. The evolution of the deep psychological mechnisms triggering reactions to sex, food, and danger and also those more recent primate and human mechanisms relating to perception of groups, reciprocity, and fairness seem like they would produce a situation pretty much like we have now with just a few major human adaptations and inventions.Add the capacity for language and speech and you have religion.Add writing and you have monotheism.Add the internet and...

You are almost correct, if you omit the last "....because you believe" in your reply quote then I agree with this statement. This then (if true) does not make what I said a circular argument.IF the Bible teaches that ANY degree of urge for God can only initially originate from God (which is my claim) it is a linear continuim, a one way street. The street becomes two-way when response is activated.Your error is refusal to accept this doctrine because of a subconscious absolute that believes God MUST extend this urge to everyone.In theological reality He does but the length of this extension to any given person is not equal. Some people get more time than others to respond.It's not WWJD but WWJHmeTD

grace2uI have to admit,it has been awhile since I dealt with this kind of fuzziness before. Again you have drawn out the issue but you have given examples of moral problems and failed to provide evidence for absolute truths.Hell you even went so far as to define them. You then make this odd statement. So here we have a definition of absolute truths as being "Perfect in quality or nature; complete". At the same time it is only partly known to man.You say it is not based on guesswork yet admit that men have incomplete knowledge of it.Then having avoided the issue of evidence you put forth this statement. I would love to be able to assert the truth or falsehood of the arguement for absolute truths but you have not yet shown evidence for them.you even admit that there is evidence. In what way is the universe rational and what other universe do you use to compare its rationality/irrationality against?You then go into the issue of rape and end with this series of questions. Obviously the idea you are presenting here is the nature of God is the reason we feel moral outrage rather than simply being appallled personally at the prospect of it.Again you have no evidence you are stating a personal point of view.PLease straighten up the lack of evidence and then we can proceed.------------------
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."
R.P. Feynman[This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-18-2003]

WILLOWTREE responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Logical error: Circular reasoning.

​

You only believe in god because god makes you believe and god makes you believe because you believe?

​

That makes no sense.

---

​

You are almost correct, if you omit the last "....because you believe" in your reply quote then I agree with this statement.

---

So why are you arguing a point you don't believe with?You were the one that said that you have to believe before god reveals himself to you but god is the one that makes you believe. That's circular.

quote:

---

This then (if true) does not make what I said a circular argument.

---

Incorrect.To remove that end leaves an ungrammatical statement. When somebody says X happens because of Y, one cannot remove the Y.

quote:

---

IF the Bible teaches that ANY degree of urge for God can only initially originate from God (which is my claim)

---

Then god deliberately makes atheists. Just how merciful and good is an entity that creates things deliberately to destroy them?

quote:

---

The street becomes two-way when response is activated.

---

But it never becomes two-way until god makes it happen. You don't believe until god makes you believe and god doesn't make you believe until you believe. Circular.

quote:

---

Your error is refusal to accept this doctrine because of a subconscious absolute that believes God MUST extend this urge to everyone.

---

I didn't say that.I'm merely pointing out that by your definition, belief is either circular in justification (and thus, is not justified) or results in an evil god.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

If I understand you correctly, you are saying then that the horrible example I gave is not wrong. It might be wrong now but there could be a time when this is not wrong. I would disagree whole heartedly. The example of torture and rape is never right. It is always wrong to do. To deny this, is to deny reality. Again, denying the obvious truth in order to fit the world into your worldview. Granted we all do this at times(given our presuppositions), but this is a blatant example of the absurdity of the philisophical system known as atheism. Is it not a more reasonable answer to concede that there are moral absolutes? To disagree is equivalent to disagreeing in our own existance, that is to say, a position like this can be taken, but is it a meaningfull position to argue? I don't think any rational philosopher has ever argued in favor of solipsism since it renders debate and communication meaningless.I mean no disrespect by this, however in my opinion(and I believe deep down in every honest unbiased human being), arguing that the example I gave is not wrong in the absolute sense, is absurd at a minimum. For one, all evidence you present to back this claim up is based on a series of unproven(in the classical sense) presupositions and conjectures(guesswork). I admit that mine are not fully proven either, merely that my claims are the more logical and rational choice.How can any rational unbiased person say that it is not ALWAYS wrong to torture a person and rape them in the example I have given? To argue contrary is to say that there is a case, in the universe in which we live in, when this is not wrong. Any such case presented is pure speculation. Presented from the confines of an atheist imagination. The contrary (my position, that absolute morality exists) not only is clear in the way our minds are wired (God placed within us these concepts), but they are stated outside our mind. God has revealed this through the old and new testaments. So while the evidence I present might not be convincing to you, it is at least physical evidence.Btw, yes I mentioned old and new testaments but don't suggest this is circular. The circular argument using the bible is much simpler. "God created the bible, therefore God exists." This is a silly argument and no rational Christian or non-Christian would use this argument. The existance of the old and new testaments are legitamate evidences to be used in this discussion, even if you only consider them to be poetic or "man originated" in nature. I would argue sufficient evidence has been demonstrated to convince an unbiased observer that they are divine in nature however for the sake of THIS argument, this doesn't matter."Christe eleison"

From your previous post: O.K. Because I wouldn't want it done to me. I can imagine myself in the place of the victim and know that I would not want to be there. I don't, so it's irrlevant. Oh, you mean like your scripture permits us to do in the old testament? It's wrong because I say it is.And from your last post: It's easy when you don't let your emotions get in the way of rational thinking. That you can't conceive of such a scenario does not mean one doesn't exist. It's just a limitation of your own imagination.Take this scenario:
A mad scientist is poised to release a deadly virus upon the human race that will surely kill 99.9% of the population in a fit of torturous and bloody agony unless you torture and kill your own child. In doing so, you have 100% certainty that the species would be safe from the virus, and you also have certainty that if you did not, the consequences I've described would be inevitable.How can you say that it would be a "good" thing to refuse to torture and kill your child at the expense of 99.9% of human life, which by the way would likely include your own and your child's as well? I have just presented such a scenario. It would be wrong not to do it. Doesn't matter. Unless you can demonstrate that there is something that is impossible in principle with a scenario sufficiently similar to the one I presented, then your claim is falsified. The two testaments which include contradictory moral commandments cannot be absolutely true by definition.[This message has been edited by ::, 12-18-2003]

grace2u:I already gave a response to this earlier in a discussion with you; the key here is memetic evolution. Memes that produce stable, sustainable societies survive; memes that produce unstable societies die out. Of course, the spread of memes is somewhat more viral than inherited (although it is mostly inherited), but bioligical and memetic evolution go side by side.Our current sense of morality is a stable, sustainable meme.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Memes + underlying psychological architecture. Lets not forget that those memes have to sustain themselves on a medium! And let's also not forget that no matter what the dominant memes dictate, humans will navigate these memetic landscapes with an personal agenda that stems from and evolved brain.Memes + behavioral ecology = morals.

Grace2u,
You still haven't explained why we need god for morals. Please in your next post address this.

There seems to be a large misunderstanding that I would like to rectify.You are not acknowledging the first part of my argument. This is the part about WHERE the urge (I didn't say belief) originates from. The urge, the inducement to want to believe initially comes from God. If this urge to believe is acted upon accordingly THEN one is eligible to receive the promise of God revealing Himself special to you.It starts with God, who in some way transmits to them that He wants them to want Him , to do something. Then as this transmission developes it becomes clear that what He wants is for them to trust Him by faith. When a person reaches this point and does what God wants it is inevitable that God will grant them what they are believing Him for. God is establishing the mode by which to relate to Him.A person cannot believe unless God FIRST implants the desire/urge to want Him, then when they discover (however that happens) what He wants them to do they then have A choice: Do what you believe He wants you to do or don't. What God wants is for a person who has the freedom to do otherwise to choose to trust Him by faith. Some people resist the urge to believe (for whatever reason) and remain in a state of conflict with God. The purpose of the Bible is to give a basis for faith/trust, which said basis is a record of God keeping His word.God - urge/desire - person - trust/faith - promise recieved or conflict. How is this circular ? You obviously can disagree but do you understand what I am saying ?Next item : You cut and pasted a quote from my reply then you answered the quote by saying "I didn't say that"Yes you are correct, that is why in the quote I called it "subconscious". You didn't say it but I anticipated your ultimate point, which said point concluded that God must extend urge to everyone or He is evil.But NOW you have said it so it is conscious and again you are partially correct. You can say it makes God evil for creating some people atheist but I subjectively disagree. I believe theology teaches that God does extend urge to everyone but it is not "equal" to use the desciption from my last post. Degree and length of urge is the issue and with each person it is different.Conclusion: Atheism is a penalty from God for continually resisting Him. Atheists did have a chance - they chose the conflict and its ultimate penalty : God giving up on them. Howbeit a person COULD choose to conform to the mode that God requires to relate to Him. Faith is a choice that anyone can choose."I never had the urge or desire for God " The Bible says you did but the effects of sin has made you forget.

Imagine the Pleistocene.Imagine small groups of intelligent, talking, tool using primates living in small bands.The social structure of such groups would have been complex and likely involved pretty intense interactions. In modern pastoralist and hunter-gatherer societies life is not easy, and there no reason to think that it would have been in the past. There was likely starvation, disease, and, of course competition with other bands of hominids.Individuals in these groups likely gained by conforming to group ideology (hairstyles, dancing, food processing, and, of course, interpretation of reality [religion]) both by gaining individual support and reinforcing group allegiances. It would not suprise me at all if this dynamic has been inplace long enough for natural selection to have favored hominids who had some kind of desire for learning a group's interpretation of reality.The desire to adhere to group philosophy is not restricted to the so-called monotheistic religions. Lots of different religions tap into this same innate human tendency.It is just survival in groups, thats all.

What urge? I never felt any urge. Can you supply some evidence for its existence beyond your say-so? How am I supposed to recognize this nebulous "urge" as coming from your God if I can't believe that He exists until I recognize it?Here, let's do a little object lesson:WILLOWTREE, inside you, you have the urge to believe in and follow Bagheera, the Divine Feline Creator of the Universe Last Thursday. However, I know that you don't believe that He exists, and you won't believe He exists until you make a choice: Do what His urge is telling you to do and accept Him so you can be re-created next Thursday, or don't.So what's it gonna be? Have you felt this urge, honestly? Well, if future omniscience is included in your definition of God, then the freedom you describe here is impossible -- but that's probably a whole new thread on its own. Are you claiming to know (at least some of) the content of Rrhain's subconscious mind? I want to be clear. Y'know, it really troubles me that so many believers will advance "the Bible says so" as an argument when invovled in debates with atheists and non-Christians -- especially when they use it to claim knowledge of the atheist's own private experience. Do you not realize that I know a priori that the Bible's claim is false, and no amount of asserting its veracity will make a lick of difference to me? My private subjective experience is mine, and I know first-hand that I have not experienced the urge that the Bible claims I have. Why would you expect me to lend credence to other aspects of your religion if I know that its tenets induce its believers to make obviously false assertions?To illustrate my point a little clearer, consider that the Word of the Divine Feline tells us that everyone thinks ipecac syrup is delicious. Therefore, you think ipecac syrup is delicious because Bagheera says so. If you disagree, it is because your rebellion against His Holy Cat-ness has blinded you to the truth.How much credence would you give to those claims?Reason for edit: Durned speling misteaks...[This message has been edited by ::, 12-19-2003]

God, too, is a meme.Having people willing to die in battle, fearing divine retribution for socially unbeneficial acts, etc, is a very good thing for a society, and thus they are selected for. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

grace2u responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Even in your scenario, such treatment has been considered right and appropriate in the past. If it were universal, everybody would agree with it and it would never happen. But it does, so obviously it isn't universal

---

​

If I understand you correctly, you are saying then that the horrible example I gave is not wrong.

---

Incorrect.Try reading what I said: It isn't universally wrong. There are cultures that do not think such treatment is evil. You are arguing that there is a universal standard. You have yet to come up with an example that is universally held to be evil.Whether or not I think it is wrong is irrelevant.

quote:

---

The example of torture and rape is never right.

---

Says who? You? Why do you get to be the arbiter of universal morality? When the vast majority of people in the world think your religion is a load of hooey, why does your opinion trump all of theirs?

quote:

---

Is it not a more reasonable answer to concede that there are moral absolutes?

---

No.We cannot find anything that is universal across all cultures. Ergo, by simple examination, there are no moral absolutes.

quote:

---

I mean no disrespect by this

---

Yes, you do. You mean to denigrate everybody else's opinions about god and morality, to assert that you have the lock on such things, and to make sure that there is no dissent from your vision. The fact that there are functional societies that directly contradict your claim is of no concern. You know you are right and damn everybody else.The mere existence of atheists proves you wrong.

quote:

---

The existance of the old and new testaments are legitamate evidences to be used in this discussion

---

Incorrect. It is circular reasoning. You are claiming that there is absolute morality because the Bible says so and then saying that the Bible says so because there is absolute morality. Your breaking down the text of the Bible into the two Testaments doesn't change the fact that you are using the existence of the Bible to justify the Bible.