Morality without God is impossible

Absolutely. Don't confuse behavior and forgiveness. You are not responsible for your own human nature; you are responsible for your behavior.You are once again conflating issues. Two roads diverged in a yellow wood... Read it. Understand it. God did not suggest which road to take, the speaker chose.And that made all the difference.

Cool.I think we're pretty much on the same page. I'll stop badgering you. Even though every time you say "absolute" or "ultimate" when talking about morals/purpose... it irks me
I know what you mean - and I know we've had this conversation before... and perhaps again another day, even.
It just irks me My note on the CS Lewis quote, just because I sometimes like to ramble: It's almost all good, except for one part:You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others.This sentence, and the entire phrase, would be very correct if it didn't include the bolded part.
The bolded part is unnecessarily snuck in there by CS Lewis in order to reach the conclusion he wants - that something has to be "independent of what people think."Let me use an example of something simpler to explain:We compare distances using a ruler.
The ruler is "something different from either" of the 2 things one is trying to compare.
The ruler, however, is not "something independent of what people think."The ruler is simply "another think that people have invented/thought about."We invented all rulers.
Every last one of them.
We (humans) drew every line on every ruler that we have ever identified.
We drew them to what we needed: an idea of "distance" that we can use to compare other things to.
Sometimes this is miles, inches, feet, centimeters, acres or "from the tip of my elbow to the tip of my fingers."The point is - it is necessary for the measuring-tool to be "independent of either thing being measured."
It is not, however, necessary for the measuring-tool to be "independent of what people think."It is not even possible to have a ruler that is "independent of what people think" since people thought up and invented all rulers!It's the same with morality.You can have a Real Morality that's perfectly useful for measuring different morals against each other, as long as it is independent of either of those ideas.
Like "Good is helping people, Bad is hurting people - as defined by the person affected by the action."There is no need for it to be "independent of what people think."
Such a requirement's existence only has a single purpose - to manipulate the "less discerning" into accepting the greater baggage of the promoter (CS Lewis.)

Lewis sabotages his own point there. If it’s independent of what people think it can’t be a product of consciousness - because that’s thought. GDR’s argument falls to that point, too.

An instinct is something we do without thinking about it - a reflex.
Like pulling your hand away from something that caused pain.A choice is something we think about, and then pick - an intelligent decision.
Like seeing puddle and weighing if your shoe is thick enough to step in it and not get wet or just go around the puddle and not risk it at all.Please note, it is not the action itself that makes something an instinct or a choice, it is the thought process:Pulling you hand away from something that caused pain certainly could be a choice - if you identified the pain, thought about moving your hand or not moving your hand, and then decided to move your hand.Stepping into a puddle with a show that's thick enough to not get your feet wet certainly can be instinctual - if you stepped into the puddle without considering options and without specifically picking the action. True - but irrelevant to the issue that if one overrides instinct with choice - then you can't "say for sure" that the choice they made was for the reason you want it to be. I would not agree.
Dog's may very well have "more instinctual actions" than people in a general sense.
But to say that dogs are universally "driven by instinct" is silly - as you showed with your example of your dog choosing to obey your command.
Any pet owner (of likely any pet) will tell you that there are at least "some" choices that the animal is capable of.
It may very well be that there's no such thing as any "universally instinctual creature" at all - but maybe there is. I'm just not prepared to attempt to draw a line at this point (and it's also irrelevant to the issue at hand.) Your proof is?Without the proof - you have nothing, and I'm right.
With proof - you are right, and I am wrong.So - where's the beef?(Hint: current leading-edge research in this area is "indeterminate" - I'm doubting that you've had better luck.) We are making decisions based on the reasoning we used. Which isn't necessarily "survival." Again - your minor point is correct (but irrelevant) and because of that, your larger idea is void.Yes - all brains are subject to the same laws of chemistry and physics.
But no - not all brains work the same way - because of different levels of physical machinery and methods based on experience.This is the entire science of "mental health" and "cognitive functionality."Two people likely don't even have the same colour of hair.
Hair is not all that complex.
Brains are very complex.
Brains are much, much, much more varied (and providing of varying results) than hair.
Hardly anyone "thinks the same way" as anyone else.I don't know how to make it clearer than that.
If you continue to refuse to admit this point - I can't go any further. Related? Sure, I'll agree with that.
But this next step of "always because of?"No. I can't agree.
Simply because I can't read other people's mind's (especially after they've died) - and I know that when other's attempt to read my motivations for actions - they're almost always wrong.

I am saying that we all have cultural memes but I do add that there is also a God meme amongst all the cultural ones. We are subject to a multitude of influences or memes. The God meme is a matter of belief as to whether it exists or not. You may well be right. However, we don't know whether a god is necessary or not. Things just are the way they are and we have know way of knowing whether a God meme exists or not. We have simply come to other conclusions.

Read your Bible for what it actually says. I agree that you don't have to believe it.

...but He is quoted a lot.

The problem with your explanation though is that your example is something tangible and physical, whereas what Lewis is talking about is intangible and non-physical.

Nowhere does it say one example of resurrection is different than the other examples.Nowhere does it say that one example of Ascension is different than the other examples.You need to provide at least reasoning for your assertion unless it is again just what you believe.

The resurrected Jesus appears in locked rooms, is often not recognized at first etc. He appears to have the ability to exist in either our Earthly dimension or God's heavenly dimension.Cretainly you are free to reject that but it is what the Bible actually says.

But that is also a great example of how the tale grew as all folk tales grow. Just as with the Great Commission or Travels with Paulie the story is enhanced and made more unreal with each repetition.But it still has absolutely NOTHING to do with morality or whatever a God meme might be or external sources of morality or universal morality.Edited by jar, : wrong key

I get it. You don't believe the Bible, so why do you keep telling Phat to just read what the Bible says. It wasn't intended to.

It doesn't actually say that though, does it?John 20 says the room was "closed". (I would guess thst locks were fairly rare in those days.) And it just says Jesus appeared in their midst, nothing about walking through walls. There's no reason to conclude from what it actually says that He had any new voodoo super-powers.

I believe the Bible actually says what is written.And I understand your intent is to move the goal posts.The fact is that the Jesus resurrection stories like the Great Commission and the Pauline conversion are exaggerated and embellished with each iteration. That is a classic trait of folk lore rather than history.I keep telling you and Phat and others to read what is actually written in the hope you will come to understand the creation of the various Bibles.

quote:

---

The problem with your explanation though is that your example is something tangible and physical, whereas what Lewis is talking about is intangible and non-physical

---

That’s a problem that makes Lewis’ argument look *better*. Lewis’ argument is even worse than Stile’s example.The real problem is that you want Lewis to be right - even when he obviously isn’t.