So, God is a Darwinist?

 
















 

i'll be praying for you OP

praying for god to somehow show himself real to you

not sure whats going on in your life, or what caused you to have a change of mind -  its really none of my business

but I know in my heart that there is a god - and he loves you

I believe that with every bit of my being

Well, I suppose to take a bird's eye view to the question I'll take a shot.

Existence without God is impossible, and science has actually done nothing to disprove God's existence. Most people start with discussions about the big bang and evolution and how evolution is an absolutely proven fact, etc, etc. It really becomes necessary to define terms and reduce everything to both its logical foundation as well as its logical conclusion.

Evolution in terms of micro-evolution or adaptation is highly obvious. We can actually observe this occur in nature everyday, but these are changes within species. Darwinism within nature is also observable to some degree right in front of our eyes - though there are also a number of distinct examples of species that by all accounts should have gone extinct centuries ago. The problem comes when you try to extend that observable occurrence to the more encompassing materialist/atheist worldview.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (I mean that, I like to know) but there is no observable instance of a change from one species to another within the fossil record (not that this in itself is even close to a smoking gun in the quest for definitive proof of God's non-existence). I've had numerous conversations with atheists on this very point and they swear up and down that there are but are never able to provide concrete examples. Most of the assumed changes are just that - assumed based on its possible correlation with the theory. In order to take the stance that there is no God, the only plausible theory as to how we (the most complex organisms in existence) came about is a foundation of abiogenesis and macro-evolutionary progression. There is absolutely no scientific consensus as to how abiogenesis might have taken place, nor has there ever been any observed or demonstrated basis to arrive at a solid conclusion as to how it might have taken place. Macro-evolutionary progression is assumed as it fits with the theory and fits with SOME of the evidence. The problem is - so does theism and more specifically Biblical Christianity.

I would also pose the argument that the question of our origin is one that any conclusion one arrives at has extremely serious and life-changing implications. Everyone deals with this. Everyone. Anyone with any intellectual honesty will have to admit that when one considers the possibilities of God or no God, they don't look strictly at the evidence. The matters concerning the implications of each possibility weigh far more heavily than one generally is willing to admit. Scientists are not somehow untouched by this reality. The fact of the matter is that there are many well-educated and intelligent scientists on both the theist and atheist sides of the spectrum. They both are viewing the same evidence, but arriving at different conclusions. But how can that be when science has it all figured out? Now I have mentioned this merely as food for thought, as I am well aware of the atheist position that a theist can't deal with the hopeless implications of death, etc and therefore needs to have a God to feel all happy and stuff etc etc. Just as I am sure you are aware of the Christian position that atheists can't deal with the hopeless (to them) implications of absolute truth, morality, and consequences of morality (or lack thereof) and choose not to believe. The reason I mention this is that, in my experience, people seem to think that scientists are untouched by this and that science is somehow "pure" which is completely false. You might be floored at understanding some of the assumptions made within certain parts of the scientific community (I'm sure someone is already chomping at the bit waiting to post "Like what?" - I'll post more on that later).

You mentioned that you want to live out life as an honorable man. That is commendable, but how do you define honorable and why? Try as one may, there is no rational basis for morality as we perceive it without the existence of a creator and without the understanding that morality is instinctual (some might even use the terms "innate" or "spiritual"). If you are an atheist, and you just read the previous statement you are more than likely thinking "I feel sorry for you that you need a book in order to be moral." This is a cliche statement that is always thrown out there as an insult, and never logically supported. Though, at its heart, I don't really need a book to tell me what is/is not moral as it is instinctive or innate. The Bible simply lays it out because human nature requires it to be laid out, else our nature chooses to justify straying from it.

The very idea of morality is meaningless without a creator. After all, we are all merely cosmic accidents. In order to have any consistent stance on morality without the existence of a creator, we would have to apply those laws of morality across the entire animal kingdom since we are all related. Do you get upset when someone kills a deer for food? Do you get upset when a farmer keeps milk cows "enslaved" in their pens so they can provide us with milk? Do you get upset when you step on a spider that was crawling on your bedspread? Should we lock up bears because they kill other animals for food? If you don't recognize these things as immoral than you must recognize humanity's uniqueness in the universe - which is further evidence of a creator when approached rationally.

Continuing down that path, what is the materialistic cause for that feeling concerning something immoral? We are all matter and came from the big bang right? Therefore, what you feel and I feel when we see a young woman raped, or a child beaten to death is just a reaction in our brain right? If it was something more than that would imply sprituality which would imply a deity. That can't be right since we are all just matter. Our reaction is just brain fizz. Do you feel like its just brain fizz when you see a child beaten to death? Looking at the animal kingdom, do you have that same feeling when you see a bear eat a small fish or squirrel?

I have been down the road of walking away from my faith. It was wonderful...at first. In many ways belief is a burden. Or at least it is when we try to do things ourselves. Thankfully it only took me a few years to realize that I was doing everything I could to justify non-belief even when non-belief defied everything I saw before my eyes every day.

Arfcom...refute away

Just wanted to address a recurring issue I've noticed as a generalization of people of faith. I've noticed a lot of people, not only on ARFCOM, but all over talking about hoping they are "worthy enough" to gain entry into Heaven upon their death. I'd just like everyone to understand that we, as humans born with impure hearts (thank you much Adam and Eve), we will NEVER be worthy enough to stand before the Lord. But fortunately for us, someone is. His name is Jesus. He came into this world knowing exactly what He was here to do. And He did it. He took all the punishment for sins committed in the past, sins being committed in the present, and all the sins yet to be committed and died for US. So that we may have eternal life with God, our one true father. Lady's and gents, all we need to do is believe its true. Entry into heaven is based on belief that it's God's grace and mercy alone that gets us there. Sorry for saying this (not really, I'm never sorry for speaking the truth) but if St. Mary Teresa, with all the good she has done, did not believe in Jesus....she is sadly, in hell right now. The truth of the matter is that we, as imperfect sinners, can never live up to the standards requested by God. But as I said, someone already paid that price for us... We don't need to pay it again. I'm not a pastor, preacher or anyone of devine guidance. I'm a man, a sinner, imperfect in many ways. I've done so many things in my life I wish I could redo. But I understand, I believe that the Lord has good in store for me, for all who believe in him. He promises this. He, unlike us, ALWAYS keeps His promises. Please everyone, stop thinking as if we do more good our heavenly home will be secure. It's through Jesus, and Jesus alone that our room in His mansion is provided. Doing good, however, comes with the territory of being a Christian. Don't stop doing good... But maybe we should all pray to change the motives on our hearts for doing these good deeds.

HE most certainly does......

Prayers inbound for everyone here so that they find their way in whatever religion or manner they choose to honor HIM.

Yes.

...and He is awesome.

Good for you, welcome to the world of reason. Now you can live your life to the fullest, knowing that this gift of life, while great, is precious and finite. Make the most of it.

Life is a gift?  A gift from who?

Prove it one way or another, otherwise it hardly matters.

My answer is maybe.

From your parents.

QFT

***<><***

Your answer is one of impatience and demanding someone even God to produce details and evidence that He or His people will not provide because obviously these spiritual things and matters have not been revealed to you at the present.

If your premise for a God and creationism begins and ends with you according to the details and models of the scientific method concerning Darwinism, secular science, or the like, I've only got a couple things to say to you concerning that and discerning the kingdom of God or not?

Rock on.
You'll never find it.
So why don't you just go back to your own country where monkey  sculls have human jaws sanded and glued to them and such items like that?
Alright?
We're not real impressed with any of your models either.

Negative. Humans can't make life. We can mix the fluids together that make a person, but we have no part in it actually becoming a person. Did we make our bodies produce the fluids to make the person?  Of course not. After the fluids mix, do we make each cell reproduce?  Do we have any control over how the baby will turn out?(not talking about bad things that the mother can do while pregnant that can hurt the baby)

I would have to say that we have very little involvement in the making of life, we just get the ball rolling.

ETA:I understand that "fluid" is not the proper term, but I didn't want to go into detail here. I'm sure everyone that needs to know, knows what I'm talking about.

Beat me to it.
"The world of," wat?
"Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow will be better than today until the day that we die."
How can life be so precious or great when it is full of debauchery and self-centeredness?
Ecclesiastical I think?

I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning. Parents have no part in their offspring becoming a person? How's that? And yes, our bodies produce the 'fluids to make the person'. Our reproductive systems works pretty much just like every other mammal on the planet.

And of course,  DNA controls 'how the baby will turn out'.

Not sure what's going on in your life, but mine isn't full of debauchery and self-centerdness.

spot on

I believe in a supreme being and actively work on a spiritual path. I am not religious and do not condemn those that are. Everyone must take their own path. I have not seen anything that shows me any one religion has the market cornered on the afterlife. I am confused by the desire of some to kill in the name of a god.

What is your premise then about life being a gift?
Gift for what purpose?
How do you see your life as a "great" thing?
Great in what way?

Across billions and billions of years I have been fortunate enough to have a few years of life. A gift that passed to me by my parents. I'm thankful they met and reproduced. I'm also grateful that they were good people and did their best to raise me as a good and moral person.

And I absolutely see my life as a great thing. I'm a productive member of society and try to follow a good and moral path. I was lucky enough to be born in a part of a great country that generally allows me the freedom to pursue my interests as I see fit. In some parts of the world (and parts of the country) people don't have the same experiences. So yes, a great and wonderful thing.

Some feel that  life only has Purpose and meaning in some way through belief in a deity. Throughout history people have always tried to assign purpose or meaning to everything the world, whether it's the alignment of the planets, the lack of rain, or the particular shape of a potato chip. I find that absurd... I see no evidence, and no need for Divine Purpose to find joy and meaning in my life. My purpose is driven by my internal desire to do the things that are meaningful to me. I find love, happiness and comfort from my wife, my family, friends, and community. I find joy in the actions I choose to pursue, whether that's from being a good husband, a good employee, a good person, or by doing the things that I enjoy, whether that's playing with my dogs, reading, getting in a good workout or spending some time at the range.

People can be good without a belief in God, and people can be evil with a belief in God. For me, I see no reason to bother. It sounds like OP has come to the same realization.

I believe that God instills these sorts of things in certain men in order that ultimately that they would kill one another in the end, as detailed in Biblical prophecies in order to fulfill them for ultimate purpose on the earth and the coming Messianic age.

The Bible does clearly state the ultimate end of such persons exhaustively in the word of God and in many places within it.

fyeguy; then do not bother with reason.

I think I've pretty clearly stated that my life is driven by reason.

Yes, so you have said.

From what I've read of your posts you've pretty much said we are all here for no reason. It's all just by chance.

Morals change from person to person, so what you think is moral may not be moral to someone else. So everyone can claim that they are moral.

Our parents did not give us the gift of life, they were given the gift of being able to reproduce. We, in no way, knit a baby together with our will or our hands. It happens through a process that is left out of our control (unless someone decides to do something to stop that process, or it is stopped involuntarily). Where does that process come from?  Did it originate from a one celled organism, or even worse, sludge that wasnt even alive to begin with?  If you believe that, then at what point of evolution did the reproductive system originate? Or better yet, what was the first organ that originated?  Was it a stomach, kidneys, blood, heart, lungs, intestines?  Or did they all form at the same time?

Fixed.

Absolutely correct. That's one of the things that make it so amazing. And I don't know if you're trying to make a play on words, but reason ? purpose in this context.


Billions of people all over the world get along with their neighbors just fine without fear of destruction by an angry god. And I don't think that it takes some herculean effort to determine that there are some actions that are good and moral in the way that we live our daily lives, and some that are not so good. There will always be gray areas and arguments, but the presence/lack of a deity doesn't change that. In the words of the OP: 'Because values and integrity do not have to be intertwined with God and religion. If they do, then more power to you. But as history has shown, they do not.'


'Knit together' is a biblical term. IMO, it has no place in a serious discussion of human reproduction. And of course that system was developed through biological evolution. I do understand that this is the Religion Forum, but if you don't agree that evolution is scientific fact then I'm not sure what else I can say to you. I don't claim that I (or scientists) have all the answers to all the questions, but I'm certain that  (as has happened many times in the past), that once the definitive proofs of our origins are discovered, they are unlikely to involve supernatural powers.

For the Christian, "IMO" has no place in stated Biblical realities.
Now, IMO, your particular views are not Scriptural and are premised and navigated on the assumption or belief that all Biblical truth if false. So where does this leave and lead to as an intelligent or discussion of debate that can be deciphered as something constructive by the mature, or by most anyone else by that matter?

No one, because these sorts of tit-for-tat discussions will prove nothing and are fruitless and totally benign.
And after a fashion according to these, one should wonder about the construct and general intentions of the author in the first place.

A fools displeasure
is known at once,
but whoever ignores
an insult is sensible.

That's a powerful statement, but in actual reality there are many wide and varied opinions regarding 'biblical realities'.

There are self-professed Christians who hold the opinion that man was created in a single instance by God, many others who believe that man evolved from earlier forms into homo sapiens, and was then granted a soul by god at a specific time along the evolutionary path.

There are self-professed Christians who hold the opinion that Jesus (the man) lived and died while never leaving the middle east, and many others who believe he traveled to North America.

There are self-professed Christians who hold the opinion that the every word of every verse of every chapter of the bible is absolutely literally true, while many others feel it is metaphorical or allegorical.

There are self-professed Christians who hold the opinion that new translations of the bible better capture the intent as applied to the modern world, many others who believe you can only get the gyst from going back as close to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.


It is easy to dismiss those who believe differently than you, just as it is easy for them to dismiss you. Either way it's an opinion.


My intent was to provide solidarity in spirit to the original poster, and applaud him for coming to the same realization I did. What was your intent?

Am I being insulting? It certainly is not my intent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4EaWPIlNYY

I would invite you however to the thread: " 'Let There Be Light' in Science" of course!
You might find one or two details about the latest discoveries about the origins of the universe according to Huge Ross PhD interesting or favorable; I don't know.
Please do examine though!

Thanks

Fyeguy,
Can you explain how the reproduction process evolved?  How did it happen?  Did the uterus, Fallopian tubes, ovaries, testes, etc. form at one time?  If not, why would one form without the other?  And when did the different genders come into play?  And how can those different genders just happen to have the exact mutations needed to mate with the other gender?  We obviously came from one gender, so how did we start reproducing when the genders split?  Did we have male and female reproductive organs before the gender split?  If so, how?

Since you ask, yes he exists.  He responds to prayer, changes me, and changes the world around me.  He leads me to do his work, leads me away from what I planned or expected, and in a word, exists.  Likewise, I know what I would be without him.



Point of curiosity: I didn't seen an actual answer to the earlier question "Why bother with honorable?"  I saw a comment on the notion that one can live "Values and Integrity" without God and Religion, but it didn't answer the question of "why bother."


Consider this statement: "If God does not exist, everything is permitted".  Would you agree or disagree and why?  

What now do you consider to be your "value" or "purpose" (especially in the light of the 3rd law of thermodynamics and apparently increasing expansion of the universe)?  

What now do you consider to be the logical underpinning that anchors your sense of "values", "honor", and "integrity"?  And are you not free to discard them like so much filthy rags?  ... I re-ask the question, "why bother" with honor at all? are not all things permitted for you now?  And what limits and guides now direct your course?  The opinions and morays of humanity as  a whole? Your own personal tastes?  Do you hold that there some geometry of "right" beyond your neurons or the sum of human neurons that you lay hold to as though it were a metaphysical universal truth like mathematics?  (e.g. what C.S. Lewis refers to as "The Tao" in "Abolition of Man")

One of the most freeing aspects of being an atheist is that I am able to humbly say I don't know.

Are you an evolutionary biologist? I am not and I don't claim extensive knowledge of the evolution of human reproduction. That said, what I do know is that there are many many scientists who do have that extensive knowledge, and their prolific and peer-reviewed research points comprehensively towards a process that does not require supernatural intervention. I could post a dozen links, but here is as good a place to start as any.

A theist has to (not so humbly) state that I do know, because it has been laid out for me perfectly in the bible/quoran/etc. There is nothing original or enlightening about Genesis that provide any true insight into the creation of the universe. No profound truths, and nothing that differs greatly in style from any other writing of primitive people grasping to understand the world. Creation myths abound in the world, many predate the biblical account by a long long time, and all are equally void of any true insight.

There are many large holes in our understanding of the universe. There are many things that are not yet known. You are welcome to stuff God into those holes as you like, but then (as NGT so eloquently puts it) 'God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on'.

You can freely ask those questions, but you have to then ponder the converse argument: What kind of person only lives a moral life because failure to comply will result in destruction? Is fear of god the ONLY thing that makes you a good man, father, neighbor, etc? Without your good book, would you immediately be out murdering, raping and pillaging, because 'hey, why bother?'

As I mentioned before, billions of people all over the world (who unrepentantly) reject your god get along with their neighbors just fine without needing that inconvenient fear of eternal damnation.

Faith:  Definition from dictionary.com
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief:
the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.:
He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

The things in blue show that you have to have faith to believe the things you state here.

Here's an excerpt from the link you gave me, let's look at some of the assumptions that are made and how many different theories.  I will highlight them in red.


Many protists reproduce sexually, as do the multicellular plants, animals, and fungi. In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1200 million years ago in the Proterozoic Eon.[5] All sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms derive from a common ancestor which was a single celled species.[1][6][7] There are a few species which have secondarily lost this feature, such as Bdelloidea and some parthenocarpic plants.

Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner. The necessity to repair genetic damage is one of the leading theories explaining the origin of sexual reproduction. Diploid individuals can repair a damaged section of their DNA via homologous recombination, since there are two copies of the gene in the cell and one copy is presumed to be undamaged. A mutation in a haploid individual, on the other hand, is more likely to become resident, as the DNA repair machinery has no way of knowing what the original undamaged sequence was.[9] The most primitive form of sex may have been one organism with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself.[10]

If, as evidence indicates, sexual reproduction arose very early in eukaryotic evolution, the essential features of meiosis may have already been present in the prokaryotic ancestors of eukaryotes.[7][11] In extant organisms, proteins with central functions in meiosis are similar to key proteins in bacterial transformation. For example, recA recombinase, that catalyses the key functions of DNA homology search and strand exchange in the bacterial sexual process of transformation, has orthologs in eukaryotes that perform similar functions in meiotic recombination (see Wikipedia articles RecA, RAD51 and DMC1). Both bacterial transformation and meiosis in eukaryotic microorganisms are induced by stressful circumstances such as overcrowding, resource depletion and DNA damaging conditions.[12] This suggests that these sexual processes are adaptations for dealing with stress, particularly stress that causes DNA damage. In bacteria, these stresses induce an altered physiologic state, termed competence, that allows active take-up of DNA from a donor bacterium and the integration of this DNA into the recipient genome (see Natural competence) allowing recombinational repair of the recipients’ damaged DNA.[13] If environmental stresses leading to DNA damage were a persistent challenge to the survival of early microorganisms, then selection would likely have been continuous through the prokaryote to eukaryote transition,[14] and adaptative adjustments would have followed a course in which bacterial transformation naturally gave rise to sexual reproduction in eukaryotes.

Sex may also have been present even earlier, in the RNA world that is considered to have preceded DNA cellular life forms.[15] A proposal for the origin of sex in the RNA world was based on the type of sexual interaction that is known to occur in extant single-stranded segmented RNA viruses such as influenza virus, and in extant double-stranded segmented RNA viruses such as reovirus.[16] Exposure to conditions that cause RNA damage could have led to blockage of replication and death of these early RNA life forms. Sex would have allowed re-assortment of segments between two individuals with damaged RNA, permitting undamaged combinations of RNA segments to come together, thus allowing survival. Such a regeneration phenomenon, known as multiplicity reactivation, occurs in influenza virus[17] and reovirus[18]

Another theory is that sexual reproduction originated from selfish parasitic genetic elements that exchange genetic material (that is: copies of their own genome) for their transmission and propagation. In some organisms, sexual reproduction has been shown to enhance the spread of parasitic genetic elements (e.g.: yeast, filamentous fungi).[19] Bacterial conjugation, a form of genetic exchange that some sources describe as sex, is not a form of reproduction, but rather an example of horizontal gene transfer. However, it does support the selfish genetic element theory, as it is propagated through such a "selfish gene", the F-plasmid.[10] Similarly, it has been proposed that sexual reproduction evolved from ancient haloarchaea through a combination of jumping genes, and swapping plasmids.[20]

A third theory is that sex evolved as a form of cannibalism. One primitive organism ate another one, but rather than completely digesting it, some of the 'eaten' organism's DNA was incorporated into the 'eater' organism.[10]

Sex may also be derived from another prokaryotic process. A comprehensive 'origin of sex as vaccination' theory proposes that eukaryan sex-as-syngamy (fusion sex) arose from prokaryan unilateral sex-as-infection when infected hosts began swapping nuclearised genomes containing coevolved, vertically transmitted symbionts that provided protection against horizontal superinfection by more virulent symbionts. Sex-as-meiosis (fission sex) then evolved as a host strategy to uncouple (and thereby emasculate) the acquired symbiont genomes.

Hey, you're not the only one who doesn't know how human reproduction evolved.  The scientists that you put so much FAITH in don't either.  How many different ideas are there here?  And how many are based on IF this or that happened?  I'm not hearing many absolutes here.

You say: "You can freely ask those questions...", and yes I regularly ask those questions and receive no meaningful answer.  I also came to no meaningful answer in my explorations of a world without a god.  I found there was no eternal overarching meaning or reason to existence.

As to your subject change:  "What kind of person only lives a moral life because failure to comply will result in destruction?"

I suggest that is a false or at least incomplete premise.  I do not serve my God out of fear of destruction, but out of appreciation for his love and wisdom and creativity.  He is worthy to be served, and he has the power to change things, to improve them, and make even the ugly and useless beautiful and useful.  In him I have an eternal meaning, without such a being, how are we any more than stardust blowing in the stellar winds?

As to your question: "Without your good book, would you immediately be out murdering, raping and pillaging, because 'hey, why bother?'"

Let me ask you to answer the questions you briefly dismissed and did not answer, since it comes to the same topic and I asked first.  Without a "good book", or more correctly, without an eternal judging consciousness that has values and makes judgements, why should anyone not do those things, other than perhaps personal taste, or fear of the disapproval of others?

As to this statement: "As I mentioned before, billions of people all over the world (who unrepentantly) reject your god get along with their neighbors just fine without needing that inconvenient fear of eternal damnation."  I do not consider this to be part of the debate, it's merely a topic you seem to like to introduce and elaborate on.  I  have made no statement that a relationship with God is required for people to live together nicely.  I merely ask for reason why people should do so beyond their own personal tastes or the fear of being injured or terminated by others.  I also ask, if the reason for people to "Be nice" is the latter, how is living in fear of the punishment of the rest of humanity any different from living in fear of a god?

In many years of asking the question, I have never met a satisfactory response to "why bother".  People cling to the beauty of the cut flowers and think they can keep it forever when connection to it's root, and eternal and omnipresent consciousness that assigns value and judgement, is severed.  In rational exploration of a purely material world, I discovered no reason to hold any values other than those of personal taste (which are ultimately vain and meaningless), or to conform to those which were least inconvenient.  If your answer is that you value honor out of personal taste, I believe you, but don't criticize anyone else for living out their own personal tastes honorable or not, for they are merely living out their own personal tastes as you do.  If your answer is that you fear the rest of humanity and their judgement of your actions, you are no different than one who lives in fear of a god.

Are you trying to make the leap that my faith is somehow similar to yours? You can call it faith if you like, but you understand that what's highlighted in blue has nothing to do with religion? I have faith in many people and their actions, and that faith is based on evidence of their behavior. There's nothing blind about it.


Of course you're not, there are no absolutes in science. The theories presented (and many more) are based on evidence, and theories that are presented that prove contrary to the evidence are discarded. ALL of what we know of the universe comes from this process.

You can believe as you like, but for me looking to those who are subject matter experts on the actual physical evidence is a much better path than looking to a book that says it is true, not based on evidence, but because it says it is true.

You probably won't get a meaningful (to you) answer to that question because it's not a question worth asking. You asked 'Why bother with honorable?' You're starting with the grand assumption that morality comes from god, and as he decides what is honorable there is no honor without him. That assertion is true only if you pick and choose which contents of the bible you like and you ignore the more inconvenient ones. Values, integrity, morality and honor all existed long before man invented their gods. Homo Sapiens is a highly social species and all human societies have developed norms of moral conduct independent of any religion. Lowly ants have complex social structures, and they developed those structures for the same reason we did, it contributed to the survival of their species. We bother because we evolved to bother.


Oh come now, eternal damnation/destruction/hellfire is not a part of the equation? The bible certainly devotes a whole lot of ink to telling you just how terrible and complete the consequences of straying from the path. And you have to acknowledge that god's 'power to change things, to improve them, and make even the ugly and useless beautiful and useful' is an idea that exists only in your head, independent of any physical reality. It's not evidence that you can use to present an argument.

For my money, one of the most profoundly amazing things that we know about the universe is that we are made from materials forged in the centers of stars. That's a pretty awe inspiring thing in my book.


My statement is a logical response to the 'without god, everything is permitted' fallacy. The vast majority of people live in peace without your god, and with 'all things permitted'. How is that possible without your deity's guiding hand? The fact that you can do bad things does not necessarily mean that you will do bad things. That's true for the vast majority of people in the world.


I'm afraid it couldn't be more different. Conforming to evolutionary societal norms to thrive in the modern world is quite a philosophical departure from living in fear of a deity that will murder you if you do not comply.

"You probably won't get a meaningful (to you) answer to that question because it's not a question worth asking"
It’s actually rather important.  This response is like saying “it’s not worth asking” if this or that god really exists.  This question weighs on whether you should just blindly accept certain morals or other beliefs the people around you have pressed upon you.  I find it fascinating that so many people are willing to question a god, but then stop short of questioning the rest of the pre-made ideas, ideals, and dogmas that the people surrounding them lay upon them.

"You're starting with the grand assumption that morality comes from god."
Nope.  I make no such assertion.  Humans make up rules at the drop of a hat.  You seem to want to talk about that a lot, but it’s not part of my question.

"…and as he decides what is honorable there is no honor without him."
I don’t recall making any such assertion. Let's leave God out of this shall we?  The question is not about God despite your interest in continually injecting him.  The question is about a world without any gods, spirits, or other non-physical riff raff, and where meaning and any requirement for complying with any of these concepts such as “honor” or “integrity” come from when there is no god in consideration.

"Homo Sapiens is a highly social species and all human societies have developed norms of moral conduct".
You begin to answer the question I think.  From this I begin to deduce that you see “humanity” as the source of “meaning” and whatever it happens to pick at a given time, be it freedom or slavery, conquest or peace, kindness or torture etc. as the definition of “right” and “wrong”.  No?  Is it not this but from some other source for you?

"We bother because we evolved to bother. "
One might argue that people adhere to religions because they evolved to adhere to religions, but you don’t seem content with that state, why then should you suddenly become content by only discarding a single layer of dogmas and “societal” norms?  Is it a lack of adventurousness?  A lack of independent spirit?  Perhaps you are just comfortable with the beliefs you’ve been handed.  Of course, so too then is the believer in the beliefs they have come to.  Seems like grounds for people letting each other be no?

"Oh come now, eternal damnation/destruction/hellfire is not a part of the equation?"
Nope.  You do seem quite preoccupied with it however.

"And you have to acknowledge that god's 'power to change things, to improve them, and make even the ugly and useless beautiful and useful' is an idea that exists only in your head, independent of any physical reality."
Nonsense.  I happen to know it from experience, but I realize it is beyond you to share the experience, and therefore I do not make it any part of an argument.  I simply share my experience here.  Such is not the objective of my question though.

"My statement is a logical response to the 'without god, everything is permitted' fallacy."
Please explain why this is a fallacy.  What is not permitted without a god, other than what you personally might not like, or that others will accost you for?  

"The vast majority of people live in peace without your god, and with 'all things permitted'."
No doubt.  But that has nothing to do with the topic I’m asking about.


"How is that possible without your deity's guiding hand?"
Who cares, that's not the topic I’ve asked about.

"The fact that you can do bad things does not necessarily mean that you will do bad things."
No doubt

"That's true for the vast majority of people in the world."
And it is NOT true for many others.  On what basis do you declare one set “right” and the other set “wrong” other than either just personal tastes, or just taking what the great mass of humans on average hand to you as their morality?

"I'm afraid it couldn't be more different. Conforming to evolutionary societal norms to thrive in the modern world is quite a philosophical departure from living in fear of a deity that will murder you if you do not comply."
I’m afraid don’t see the distinction.  Societies have often maimed or murdered people for failing to comply, and many people adhere to the “evolutionary societal norms” of those cultures out of fear of such punishment.  Indeed, are not law, policing, and punishment ubiquitous in human history and contemporary civilization?  Living in fear of the opinions and punishments of others appears to be a default state for humanity, evolved or otherwise.  If it were not necessary to cause people to live in such fear, why should we have such vast institutions of trial and punishment?

Since you appear to be of the “society” as definition of value, meaning, purpose, and morality, I’ll share my view on it and I invite your perspective as well.

First of all, as with an individual, an entire species may and generally will in our experience become extinct.  Certainly given the current evidence toward the truth of the 3rd law of thermodynamics and an expanding universe, it is not unreasonable to assume that indeed all life and consciousness (and therefore meaning) eventually becomes impossible as the universe burns out.  In that state, what does it matter what you had for lunch, what clothes you wore, or what morals and achievements you or your species strove for?  Cosmically speaking for a purely material universe I see no ultimate meaning or purpose at all.  Even Dawkins agrees  for a moment, (before picking up the absurd trappings of human morality and human purpose again) “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”.

True that for small moments the engines of entropy can appear to run backward and order is created in the midst of chaos… for brief moments “meaning” and “purpose” appear to have existence in the midst of a meaningless and unconscious universe, but in either case, the cold, lifeless, purposeless trend takes over in time and all that remains is disorder and purposelessness.

No?  If not, what would you offer as some alternative where there is in fact some ultimate meaning or purpose in a purely material universe with the characteristics of our own?  And kindly leave gods and spirits and such out of it.  The question refers to a purely material universe, of which I am constantly told that I should believe in contrary to my own personal experience.  Let's hear about the "Real world".

1Cor. 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of  the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
1Cor. 2:13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
1Cor. 2:14  But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

No.

And I can't imagine what you've had to go through for your job. I don't see how  anyone could remain religious under the circumstances.

Confidence in the findings of those who study these matters is not blind faith. Scientists draw wrong conclusions all the time and are then proven wrong by other scientists using new evidence. Not by some dude thumping his favorite book. Every modern marvel and technological advance is built on an application and understanding of the evidence of the physical world. So yes, I like living in a world with fewer diseases and all the modern conveniences made possible by smart men and women studying the evidence and have no issue placing my confidence in them. And I don't recall stating that it has to be evolution, but that is the most likely scenario based on the evidence. You may want to get your definition of the word theory from a scientist and not a pastor.


I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that there is no such thing as a Subject Matter Expert? I don't want to mistakenly attribute such a ridiculous notion to you.


All human beings are subject to error, and I'm not claiming that any understanding or morality we have is perfect. I'm simply asserting that it's logical to accept that these things (good and bad) originate from men, not a supernatural source.

Sorry crux, I may have misread your question and/or attributed another poster's words to you. The question as I read it is 'why bother being moral unless your morality comes from a deity'. That's a question I think is silly and built on a false premise. If you're asking a different question, please re-state it.


Again, I may be mistaking you with another poster, sorry. So to be clear, from where does your morality originate?

I'm not discarding a single layer, I'm discarding many many layers, as are all people. I discard the dogma and societal norms of a muslim society. Do you? I discard the dogma and societal norms of a Hindu society. Do you?  I  discard the dogma and societal norms of a fundamentalist christian society. Do you? We all make decisions on what societal norms we will accept and which we will reject. I simply reject all with a supernatural source, as I see no evidence. I assume you reject all with a supernatural source, save one. Is that a safe assumption?

And it's not a lack of adventurousness, it's a lack of the need for a deity.


It's quite a simple distinction. Fear of punishment for harming others is not the same as fear of eternal punishment from a deity for disobeying a set of arbitrary rules. You're not punished in most societies for arguing societal norms. In a fundamentalist setting, you comply with the rules exactly as outlined or you die. Is this not how you interpret it?


You're requiring me to leave gods and spirits out of it in a forum discussion on the topic of 'Does God Exist?'. Are you sure you're in the right place?

I agree with Dawkins. I don't have the childish need for some Ultimate Purpose for me or for the universe. I accept the universe as it is.