Author Topic: Evidence for God  (Read 10176 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Simon Woodstock

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
  • Rep: -26
    • Nowhere
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #360 on: November 11, 2017, 07:38:11 AM »


This is another good/intense movie about philosophical/moral Worldviews by the same media company. Skaters can do a 180 too.


oyolar

  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 8707
  • Rep: 181
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #361 on: November 11, 2017, 09:15:53 AM »
Hey Simon - have you ever heard of secular humanism?  That's an entire branch of moral structures not based on religion so please stop using that as an argument for God.  Instead, please explain Psalm 137:7-9, Deuteronomy 13 & 17, Numbers 31, Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20,  Chronicles 15:12-13, and Romans 1:24-32 and why those are acceptable deaths?  Is it because God said they are?

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics-without-gods/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality#Morality_does_not_rely_on_religion

I am not saying that secular humanists don't have moral systems and/or cannot be moral. What I am saying is that there is no true philosophical foundation for the secular humanists' moral claims. If they are all relative to the individual, or society, etc, then they are all just opinions and thus cannot be consistently applied globally (or supported meta-ethically). Rather, what we see is actually evidence for God; the Golden Rule has been referenced several times on this thread. How or why is the Golden Rule so universally accepted? Because moral standards are universal (i.e., not relativistic to the individual) and thus are set in place by a Standard (God) that exists outside of time and space as arbiter. So, I won't stop using this argument because skeptics actually have to rely on a universal moral standard outside of themselves to say there is no universal moral standard. All arguments against the Moral Argument for God are self-refuting.

What is more, if you believe that the Bible passages that you referenced are morally wrong, by what standard are you saying that they are morally wrong? By your own standard or opinion? Or are you referencing a standard that exists outside of yourself that should apply to other people as well? The latter has to be the case, and, again, this self refuting on behalf of the secular humanist approach.

Further, if I were to take each of the Bible passages you referenced and give you clear philosophical/theological explanations for each of them, would you then consider becoming a Christian in light of the facts presented?

Thanks for avoiding my request to explain these passages which seemingly contradict the commandment "thou shalt not murder/kill/destroy" for no other reason than they detail something God doesn't like and basically saying "I could totally explain these but I need you to say you'll believe me when I explain them" makes it pretty clear that you're not that confident in your explanation.  Furthermore, I think then that a consistent moral code such as "don't kill/harm people whose actions are not killing/harming others (such as witches or homosexuals)" is much more consistent and easy to apply than God's rules as outlined in the Bible.  And i'm basing that off my interactions with others and society and that seems valid.  Basically, you haven't convincingly argued that an outside arbiter/God is absolutely necessary for a moral framework nor have you convincingly argued that a "consistent" morality (at least as you define it which to non-believers is based on the whims of a outside force insistent on controlling every aspect of your life) is better than one that is relativistic and can change and adapt to different situations and eras.

The Golden Rule as a consistent moral framework can prove merely that different human societies have learned that cooperation is more likely to lead to continued existence that disagreement and strife.  It doesn't have to mean that some external arbiter handed it down despite your insistence that that's the only philosophical way for it to make sense.  You're not actually doing philosophy when you claim that because you're begging the question and arguing from the starting point that "God exists" versus arguing towards it.

Please explain more your claim that all arguments against a universal moral standard need to rely on the existence of a universal moral standard because that doesn't make sense to me.

And further, even if you were doing philosophy correctly, that does not necessarily mean that God must exist outside of your thought experiment because we have no concrete evidence for it.  Plato could logically and philosophical make a case for the existence of perfect forms, but until we can prove their existence in other ways, believing in them requires faith.

Simon Woodstock

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
  • Rep: -26
    • Nowhere
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #362 on: November 11, 2017, 09:29:27 AM »
Hey Simon - have you ever heard of secular humanism?  That's an entire branch of moral structures not based on religion so please stop using that as an argument for God.  Instead, please explain Psalm 137:7-9, Deuteronomy 13 & 17, Numbers 31, Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20,  Chronicles 15:12-13, and Romans 1:24-32 and why those are acceptable deaths?  Is it because God said they are?

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics-without-gods/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality#Morality_does_not_rely_on_religion

I am not saying that secular humanists don't have moral systems and/or cannot be moral. What I am saying is that there is no true philosophical foundation for the secular humanists' moral claims. If they are all relative to the individual, or society, etc, then they are all just opinions and thus cannot be consistently applied globally (or supported meta-ethically). Rather, what we see is actually evidence for God; the Golden Rule has been referenced several times on this thread. How or why is the Golden Rule so universally accepted? Because moral standards are universal (i.e., not relativistic to the individual) and thus are set in place by a Standard (God) that exists outside of time and space as arbiter. So, I won't stop using this argument because skeptics actually have to rely on a universal moral standard outside of themselves to say there is no universal moral standard. All arguments against the Moral Argument for God are self-refuting.

What is more, if you believe that the Bible passages that you referenced are morally wrong, by what standard are you saying that they are morally wrong? By your own standard or opinion? Or are you referencing a standard that exists outside of yourself that should apply to other people as well? The latter has to be the case, and, again, this self refuting on behalf of the secular humanist approach.

Further, if I were to take each of the Bible passages you referenced and give you clear philosophical/theological explanations for each of them, would you then consider becoming a Christian in light of the facts presented?

Thanks for avoiding my request to explain these passages which seemingly contradict the commandment "thou shalt not murder/kill/destroy" for no other reason than they detail something God doesn't like and basically saying "I could totally explain these but I need you to say you'll believe me when I explain them" makes it pretty clear that you're not that confident in your explanation.  Furthermore, I think then that a consistent moral code such as "don't kill/harm people whose actions are not killing/harming others (such as witches or homosexuals)" is much more consistent and easy to apply than God's rules as outlined in the Bible.  And i'm basing that off my interactions with others and society and that seems valid.  Basically, you haven't convincingly argued that an outside arbiter/God is absolutely necessary for a moral framework nor have you convincingly argued that a "consistent" morality (at least as you define it which to non-believers is based on the whims of a outside force insistent on controlling every aspect of your life) is better than one that is relativistic and can change and adapt to different situations and eras.

The Golden Rule as a consistent moral framework can prove merely that different human societies have learned that cooperation is more likely to lead to continued existence that disagreement and strife.  It doesn't have to mean that some external arbiter handed it down despite your insistence that that's the only philosophical way for it to make sense.  You're not actually doing philosophy when you claim that because you're begging the question and arguing from the starting point that "God exists" versus arguing towards it.

Please explain more your claim that all arguments against a universal moral standard need to rely on the existence of a universal moral standard because that doesn't make sense to me.

And further, even if you were doing philosophy correctly, that does not necessarily mean that God must exist outside of your thought experiment because we have no concrete evidence for it.  Plato could logically and philosophical make a case for the existence of perfect forms, but until we can prove their existence in other ways, believing in them requires faith.

Sure thing. I can prove the self refuting nature of relativism with one related yes or no question. Do you believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth? Yes or no?

(no need for a long response, just say yes or no)




bawtawd3

  • Guest
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #363 on: November 11, 2017, 09:48:00 AM »
answer it both ways so I can see the angle your using to outsmart him

Simon Woodstock

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
  • Rep: -26
    • Nowhere
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #364 on: November 11, 2017, 10:07:42 AM »
answer it both ways so I can see the angle your using to outsmart him

Its a tired old tactic being tried on me. The old "bring up a bunch of difficult to explain Bible verses to get the opponent running around in response" trick. There are reasonable answers available for the hard to explain verses and/or the hard to reconcile philosophical tensions in the Bible and Theology. So, I have to put out the provisio of the opponent at least accepting the answers to the first wave of challenge verses they present without adding a second and third wave of challenge verses right after the work is done on the first batch.

Nevertheless, I will make you a deal, though. If there is a verse (or two) in the Bible that has always puzzled you, and you really want to know if there are good explanations, I will be more than happy to make an attempt at response.

But, shy of that, there are plenty of resources on the web that respond to the Bible difficulty challenges.

Also, the foundational moral issue still remains. The challenger is basically saying that the Bible is immoral, or has an immoral representation of God. The question of "Immoral view of God based on what standard of morals?" has to be answered.

What is happening when anyone says that the Bible is of low substance as far as moral representation of God goes, this implies that the Bible could be better in that moral regard. To say that something could be better, implies that there is a Best standard by which to judge things as being less than best, or not as good as something else, etc. There has to be a Best standard (God) in order to have a foundation for stating that something is less than best, could be better, etc.

Relying the Best standard to argue against God (the Best standard) is what Frank Turek calls  "Stealing from God" .. which is what the atheist has to do whenever they make universal moral claims about anything.

PS: If you review this entire discussion thread from page one, not one person has properly explained how there can be universal morals apart from the universal moral standard that comes from God. If morals are individually or culturally relative, then the genocides of Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. could not be viewed as morally wrong, but rather them merely having their own relativistic views on morals and each of their subsequent societies falling into collective affirmation of the purported moral benefit of genocide (i.e, the elimination of so called inferior races, classes, etc, for the so called benefit of society).

The Christian worldview allows me (or anyone else for that matter) to have a philosophical foundation for saying that Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the like were wrong and evil in every sense of the term, past, present, and future.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2017, 10:12:57 AM by Simon Woodstock »

oyolar

  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 8707
  • Rep: 181
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #365 on: November 11, 2017, 11:04:38 AM »
My answer to your question is "No."  And I'm going to ignore your dismissive "no need for a long response" to elaborate on it but feel free to ignore everything beyond that first sentence.

To respond more fully, it's not a tired old tactic to challenge you on your beliefs if your first response is insufficient to your claims OR if your first response is only sufficient to answer the first challenge.  Having more challenges to your claims is saying that I don't find your claims sufficiently supported.

And I've told you what my basis that the Bible is immoral is based on - social understandings and empathetic understandings of other people's ability to feel pain and a desire to decreased actively harming others as I would not want them to harm me.  That one can reach this morality without a command from the divine is not unreasonable. Again, you're assuming that because you need some greater external command to base your morality on does not mean that we all do.  And your need for this does not mean that it is philosophically necessary nor that it must exist in some solid form the way you believe God does.  You're arguing for a very narrow Platonic ideal: i.e. there is a perfect moral form that actually exists despite not having concrete evidence to support your claims.

https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/articles/5640

Simon Woodstock

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
  • Rep: -26
    • Nowhere
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #366 on: November 11, 2017, 11:16:41 AM »

My answer to your question [Is there absolute truth? yes or no?] is "No." 


Just one more follow up question:

Are you, then, absolutely sure that there is no absolute truth? yes or no?

givecigstosurfgroms

  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 2040
  • Rep: -199
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #367 on: November 11, 2017, 11:56:55 AM »
  I wonder if this is the real simon woodstock.  Hey I remember you're 1st interview?   you were skating a curb or flatbar doing a combo wearing a denim vest and you skated for dogtown?  Lets get some stories on the go here. JJ rodgers?  did brian fernandad skate for dog town ?  You grinded that out house roof before jeremy klien grinded those fake rooves.

Thanks man: Yeah, the good old days. I got boards for a minute from Dogtowm through Stacy Gibo but wound up as AM on Black Label. I lived with JJ Rogers for a while in downtown SJ. I would come home and say "Hey JJ, what are you up to?" and I would see a dead squirrel on the porch in front of him and he would respond "Trying to learn how to taxidermy this dead squirrel" etc.. etc.. etc.. I remember him shredding that San Jose mini ramp pro contest in the 90s. Omar Hassan won it (I think) but JJ placed top 10.

I think Ferdinand rode for Circle A back in its heyday (I could be wrong on that). Brian is a sick skater, he would trow down at every spot.

The outhouse grind went down at a Tracker party in SD. Felt good to do it.
  Tight!

oyolar

  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 8707
  • Rep: 181
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #368 on: November 11, 2017, 12:37:30 PM »

My answer to your question [Is there absolute truth? yes or no?] is "No." 


Just one more follow up question:

Are you, then, absolutely sure that there is no absolute truth? yes or no?

Ah - I see you're attempting to shift the burden of proof to me.  If I say 'yes, I'm absolutely sure there is no absolute truth" you'll ask me why i believe that, ask for evidence of its non-existence, say I can't give that so it's philosophically unsound to believe that, etc. So I'll say I'm absolutely sure that no absolute truth exists in the same way that I'm absolutely sure that unicorns aren't real.  For all intents and purposes, yes.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 10:37:31 PM by oyolar »

tobey

  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 5218
  • Rep: -13
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #369 on: November 11, 2017, 04:27:21 PM »

My answer to your question [Is there absolute truth? yes or no?] is "No." 


Just one more follow up question:

Are you, then, absolutely sure that there is no absolute truth? yes or no?

Ah - I see you're attempting to shift the burden of proof to me.  If i say 'yes, I'm absolutely sure there is no absolute truth" you'll ask me why i believe that, ask for evidence of its non-existence, say I can't give that so it's philosophically unsound to believe that, etc. So I'll say I'm absolutely sure that no absolute truth exists in the same way that I'm absolutely sure that unicorns aren't real.  For for all intents and purposes, yes.



Check mate atheist

Bizarro Jerry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
  • Rep: 2
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #370 on: November 11, 2017, 05:00:49 PM »
I wasn't raised religious at all as a kid, my parents never talked about religion and we've never been to church. I kinda just assumed the role as an athiest, thinking that believing in god was like believing in santa. Then I studied philosophy in undergrad, where I had a few philosophy of religion classes that kinda got me thinking.  One professor I really looked up to and was kinda a mentor admitted to the class (for the first time ever) that he was a theist.  Kinda got me thinking...like this guy was incredibly intelligent... and it took him about 30 years of hard thinking to even decide he believed in some form of god. So it's kinda hard to wrap my head around how some angsty teen is committed to atheism, and god is total bullshit, etc.  I think I'll take it to the grave deciding if I believe in a god or not. 

HATE!

  • Administrator
  • SLAP Pal
  • *****
  • Posts: 12177
  • Rep: 1044
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #371 on: November 11, 2017, 05:28:13 PM »
This thread only strengthens my apatheism.

oyolar

  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 8707
  • Rep: 181
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #372 on: November 11, 2017, 08:06:26 PM »
I wasn't raised religious at all as a kid, my parents never talked about religion and we've never been to church. I kinda just assumed the role as an athiest, thinking that believing in god was like believing in santa. Then I studied philosophy in undergrad, where I had a few philosophy of religion classes that kinda got me thinking.  One professor I really looked up to and was kinda a mentor admitted to the class (for the first time ever) that he was a theist.  Kinda got me thinking...like this guy was incredibly intelligent... and it took him about 30 years of hard thinking to even decide he believed in some form of god. So it's kinda hard to wrap my head around how some angsty teen is committed to atheism, and god is total bullshit, etc.  I think I'll take it to the grave deciding if I believe in a god or not.

I mean, incredibly intelligent people believe in things like white supremacy so intelligence in one area doesn't mean intelligence or correctness in all fields.

That said, I think if one is going to believe in a god, deism or some strains of theism makes more since than like Christianisty. 

Pigeon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Rep: 42
  • I ate too much and now my stomach hurts.
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #373 on: November 12, 2017, 06:27:02 AM »
If God created me, when did he rape my mom?

givecigstosurfgroms

  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 2040
  • Rep: -199
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #374 on: November 12, 2017, 08:27:43 AM »
There are reasonable answers available for the hard to explain verses and/or the hard to reconcile philosophical tensions in the Bible and Theology.
  That are not written by god tho like the bible is.  Those 'explainations' would vary in quality I imagine (also they are often concocted in the vein of being a defence'\offence in the creationist vs science taught in school war.  God's name to me is mutually exclusive from the whole concept of 'evidence' -why would he play that?). Maybe some passages in the good book can be read first and understood years later, thru sunshine/rain and joy/pain. (edit also good works may help contextualize passages).   With help from faith hope charity.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2017, 08:41:15 AM by givecigstosurfgroms »

GAY

  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 8050
  • Rep: 921
  • Those that SLAP, can't.
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #375 on: November 12, 2017, 02:17:56 PM »
If you guys know who Roy Moore is, then I think it's easy to see that God is in fact quite real. Roy Moore is all the proof anyone should ever need.

phalanx

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Rep: -1
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #376 on: November 13, 2017, 04:49:46 PM »
A few things that only humans can do that make me believe there must be a God or intelligent designer,

We can sing beautiful complicated songs.
We can dance a thousand different ways and make new ones up everyday!
We can write computer programs or operate on the human heart.
We can wage a war or declare peace.
We can build airplanes that go faster than sound.
We can choose to forgive those who have wronged us.

....and we can skate! with no limits to our imagination.

P.s. I don't want to hear about a monkey that can identify 800 words (taught by a human) or a parrot that can say #%[email protected]&! (because of a human)

      When a monkey can write a symphony or play Eruption on the guitar, or a parrot have a philosophical discussion I might listen.

Just some thoughts

We can also pick up a gun and mow down a church full of people praying to their God.

The evidence you've put forth seems to way that man is, himself, God, the creator of all things.

Look, in order for faith to be of any value whatsoever, the belief behind it must be based on absolutely zero proof. Any "evidence" that God exists would rob it entirely of its power. I'm writing that as somebody who prays every morning for help to stay sober and be of service to my fellow man. But I don't "know" that there's anything there hearing my prayer. If I did then faith would have no power. It's in the believing in something there's no evidence for that I draw my strength.

I'm surprised that my evidence's came across that way. My intention was to show the possibility of the intelligent design of man because of his distinct difference of all other creatures to create, therefore being created. oh, and yes the ability to misuse this gift form God to harm others for our own petty selfishness. Its funny how we humans get angry at the possibility of a God who expects good to come from us because it infringes on our freedom in someway, but the minute some wacko does something evil to others we feel God's to blame and should have had that wacko in check. As far as faith is concerned, I see it differently. I believe that faith is trust in God, a total surrender to his guidance. Evidence is a different matter all together. I can't see my lungs since their in my chest and I can't see the oxygen around me, yet I have substantial personal evidence that both exist, as my chest rises and my brain doesn't go dead. So I have personal evidence they both exist, yet I must trust both to do their part. I know that may be a weak example from your perspective, but it makes sense to me. That being said, I see evidence for God all around us, I also see Him at work in peoples lives. Just my 2 cents. Thanks for listening.

ImportantGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
  • Rep: -23
  • I'd rather be a tree.
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #377 on: November 13, 2017, 04:56:52 PM »
phalanx, please stick around.
Stop Scrolling

oyolar

  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 8707
  • Rep: 181
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #378 on: November 13, 2017, 05:53:10 PM »
A few things that only humans can do that make me believe there must be a God or intelligent designer,

We can sing beautiful complicated songs.
We can dance a thousand different ways and make new ones up everyday!
We can write computer programs or operate on the human heart.
We can wage a war or declare peace.
We can build airplanes that go faster than sound.
We can choose to forgive those who have wronged us.

....and we can skate! with no limits to our imagination.

P.s. I don't want to hear about a monkey that can identify 800 words (taught by a human) or a parrot that can say #%[email protected]&! (because of a human)

      When a monkey can write a symphony or play Eruption on the guitar, or a parrot have a philosophical discussion I might listen.

Just some thoughts

We can also pick up a gun and mow down a church full of people praying to their God.

The evidence you've put forth seems to way that man is, himself, God, the creator of all things.

Look, in order for faith to be of any value whatsoever, the belief behind it must be based on absolutely zero proof. Any "evidence" that God exists would rob it entirely of its power. I'm writing that as somebody who prays every morning for help to stay sober and be of service to my fellow man. But I don't "know" that there's anything there hearing my prayer. If I did then faith would have no power. It's in the believing in something there's no evidence for that I draw my strength.

I'm surprised that my evidence's came across that way. My intention was to show the possibility of the intelligent design of man because of his distinct difference of all other creatures to create, therefore being created. oh, and yes the ability to misuse this gift form God to harm others for our own petty selfishness. Its funny how we humans get angry at the possibility of a God who expects good to come from us because it infringes on our freedom in someway, but the minute some wacko does something evil to others we feel God's to blame and should have had that wacko in check. As far as faith is concerned, I see it differently. I believe that faith is trust in God, a total surrender to his guidance. Evidence is a different matter all together. I can't see my lungs since their in my chest and I can't see the oxygen around me, yet I have substantial personal evidence that both exist, as my chest rises and my brain doesn't go dead. So I have personal evidence they both exist, yet I must trust both to do their part. I know that may be a weak example from your perspective, but it makes sense to me. That being said, I see evidence for God all around us, I also see Him at work in peoples lives. Just my 2 cents. Thanks for listening.

Except we also have substantial scientific evidence for oxygen and how the human body works so your personal evidence as it regards oxygen's existence doesn't matter much by which I mean if you didn't exist, oxygen still would. Whereas if you didn't exist, neither would your personal evidence for god so we should take it with a grain of salt.

Also, plenty of other animals can 'create' things too and they can be more complicated than human's versions (think of honeybees' dances that are their language).  Furthermore, the human ability to create is really only evidence of the human ability to create. There is no reason to think that can be extrapolated to mean we must have been created. What you're presenting is a variation on the watchmaker argument.

givecigstosurfgroms

  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 2040
  • Rep: -199
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #379 on: November 13, 2017, 08:53:44 PM »
Quote from: phalanx
[/quote

 I can't see my lungs since their in my chest and I can't see the oxygen around me, yet I have substantial personal evidence that both exist, as my chest rises and my brain doesn't go dead. So I have personal evidence they both exist,
  What's "personal evidence"?, is that a thing?  The chest rising proves existance of lungs?  Maybe you're brain has gone dead (and came back, you seem intellegent) -I'm just saying if you don't know, you don't know.  Maybe thats okay.  If you tell people your lungs don't exist they'll surely laugh but they're the weak ones.

givecigstosurfgroms

  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 2040
  • Rep: -199
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #380 on: November 13, 2017, 09:42:24 PM »
  Kay so I saw that Simon has the abortion thing up there and I've got 2cents on that one. Right now homeless people get tickets for vagrancy.  Most homeless are woken up and made to move 5 or 6 times a night by the police.  For many years hospitals kept one rule; preservation of life.  Euthinasia and abortion are new and regardless of what side your on, both of those things include a death.  Incurring death is a brand new thing for doctors and its a line.  The thing is, once that line is crossed and you got doctors doing it for a generation or two and you've got hospitals cutting budgets things will become dicey.  Homeless people (partially because of how they're treated) end up with like 10 times as many hospital visits as the average person.  I'm saying there would have to be a 180 degree transformation in how homeless people are treated by society for them NOT to 'fall between some cracks' with a enstated euthinasia program.  Budget cuts will equal going into the hospital as a penniless addicted 50 year old and not coming back out.
  We have large scale (millions) gendercide right now by means of abortion.  Abortion and euthinasia are technologies we don't have the capacity to handle.  Monumental moral hazzard.  Thats why the 'preservation of life' thing was a thing.

ImportantGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
  • Rep: -23
  • I'd rather be a tree.
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #381 on: November 13, 2017, 11:01:46 PM »
^
There's no such thing as morality. It's as real as fairies. We are evolved, creative and thinking creatures. People should choose whether or not they wish to create life or end their own.

The real problem is inhumane laws making people want to kill themselves (vagrancy etc.) and terrible living conditions children should never experience.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 11:04:32 PM by ImportantGuy »
Stop Scrolling

givecigstosurfgroms

  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 2040
  • Rep: -199
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #382 on: November 14, 2017, 05:52:51 AM »
^
There's no such thing as morality. It's as real as fairies. We are evolved, creative and thinking creatures. People should choose whether or not they wish to create life or end their own.

The real problem is inhumane laws making people want to kill themselves (vagrancy etc.) and terrible living conditions children should never experience.
 

  You mention that  "the real problem" is homeless driven to suicide (?) -yeah maybe that's it, but I was talking about (what i feel is) an inevitable and avoidable situation that has not come to fruition yet (i'd think someone who read what I'd written, would comprehend that)  In some countries they abort females cause they don't want them, its happening en masse (millions) -Does that go under a freedom to "choose whether they wish to create life" or is it maybe fuckn bad?    We are conceiving down sydrome humans still but now they don't get born cause they get screened, (which I'm sure people are okay with but 'm not.)  Anyway to me it looks like you barely read what I wrote, gathered it was anti abortion and then just hit me with the fluff.  edit Also morality is not 'real' on its own, it needs oxygen.  If you don't want to give morality a shot that's fine its a free country.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 06:20:57 AM by givecigstosurfgroms »

ImportantGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
  • Rep: -23
  • I'd rather be a tree.
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #383 on: November 14, 2017, 06:03:33 AM »
^
Obviously, as a North American fluffball, the reasons I'd choose abortion are very different than some living in, say, China. I still think freedom of choice is some fundamental shit to protect, whatever the case may be. Gendercide is despicable, and so is screening children for "disabilities". Don't get me wrong.

I still think removing freedom of choice is infinitely more despicable.
Stop Scrolling

givecigstosurfgroms

  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 2040
  • Rep: -199
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #384 on: November 14, 2017, 06:30:32 AM »
^
Obviously, as a North American fluffball, the reasons I'd choose abortion are very different than some living in, say, China. I still think freedom of choice is some fundamental shit to protect, whatever the case may be. Gendercide is despicable, and so is screening children for "disabilities". Don't get me wrong.

I still think removing freedom of choice is infinitely more despicable.
 
Infinitely? really?  Could it not be seen as a safegaurd?  Do you want politcally motivated pressure to abort, or racial.  You're crazy if you think we are not capable of such things and it seems that the platform ecomony (mega corps) will be deciding this shit and there's defenitely "no such thing as morality" with google or amazon

ImportantGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
  • Rep: -23
  • I'd rather be a tree.
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #385 on: November 14, 2017, 06:43:17 AM »
I don't want to feel political pressure to do anything at all (see thread : Anarchy). I'd like to think I understand what the State is capable of in terms of pressure, and I agree with you on that.

I just think we need to work on improving the living conditions and culture in our world. In a theoretical world where humans are taken care of properly from their birth to their death, abortion and suicide don't exist.

I personally would never have a child even though I think it's the apex of human experience. Never say never, but I'm far from convinced it's the best thing to do right now.

Also, anybody that tries to take away my God-given (lol) right to kill myself better look the fuck out.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 06:55:48 AM by ImportantGuy »
Stop Scrolling

givecigstosurfgroms

  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 2040
  • Rep: -199
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #386 on: November 14, 2017, 11:34:09 AM »
I don't want to feel political pressure to do anything at all (see thread : Anarchy). I'd like to think I understand what the State is capable of in terms of pressure, and I agree with you on that.

I just think we need to work on improving the living conditions and culture in our world. In a theoretical world where humans are taken care of properly from their birth to their death, abortion and suicide don't exist.

I personally would never have a child even though I think it's the apex of human experience. Never say never, but I'm far from convinced it's the best thing to do right now.

Also, anybody that tries to take away my God-given (lol) right to kill myself better look the fuck out.
Thanks, insightful response.
 I wouldn't push to make suicide illegal either.

phalanx

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Rep: -1
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #387 on: November 14, 2017, 03:30:32 PM »
A few things that only humans can do that make me believe there must be a God or intelligent designer,

We can sing beautiful complicated songs.
We can dance a thousand different ways and make new ones up everyday!
We can write computer programs or operate on the human heart.
We can wage a war or declare peace.
We can build airplanes that go faster than sound.
We can choose to forgive those who have wronged us.

....and we can skate! with no limits to our imagination.

P.s. I don't want to hear about a monkey that can identify 800 words (taught by a human) or a parrot that can say #%[email protected]&! (because of a human)

      When a monkey can write a symphony or play Eruption on the guitar, or a parrot have a philosophical discussion I might listen.

Just some thoughts

We can also pick up a gun and mow down a church full of people praying to their God.

The evidence you've put forth seems to way that man is, himself, God, the creator of all things.

Look, in order for faith to be of any value whatsoever, the belief behind it must be based on absolutely zero proof. Any "evidence" that God exists would rob it entirely of its power. I'm writing that as somebody who prays every morning for help to stay sober and be of service to my fellow man. But I don't "know" that there's anything there hearing my prayer. If I did then faith would have no power. It's in the believing in something there's no evidence for that I draw my strength.

I'm surprised that my evidence's came across that way. My intention was to show the possibility of the intelligent design of man because of his distinct difference of all other creatures to create, therefore being created. oh, and yes the ability to misuse this gift form God to harm others for our own petty selfishness. Its funny how we humans get angry at the possibility of a God who expects good to come from us because it infringes on our freedom in someway, but the minute some wacko does something evil to others we feel God's to blame and should have had that wacko in check. As far as faith is concerned, I see it differently. I believe that faith is trust in God, a total surrender to his guidance. Evidence is a different matter all together. I can't see my lungs since their in my chest and I can't see the oxygen around me, yet I have substantial personal evidence that both exist, as my chest rises and my brain doesn't go dead. So I have personal evidence they both exist, yet I must trust both to do their part. I know that may be a weak example from your perspective, but it makes sense to me. That being said, I see evidence for God all around us, I also see Him at work in peoples lives. Just my 2 cents. Thanks for listening.

Except we also have substantial scientific evidence for oxygen and how the human body works so your personal evidence as it regards oxygen's existence doesn't matter much by which I mean if you didn't exist, oxygen still would. Whereas if you didn't exist, neither would your personal evidence for god so we should take it with a grain of salt.

Also, plenty of other animals can 'create' things too and they can be more complicated than human's versions (think of honeybees' dances that are their language).  Furthermore, the human ability to create is really only evidence of the human ability to create. There is no reason to think that can be extrapolated to mean we must have been created. What you're presenting is a variation on the watchmaker argument.

    lol! The exact response I expected. It was an analogy of how I believe faith works verses evidence, not submitted as proof of God. The word "personal" was to stand in for "what my perception is" of those things going on around me, and how I can somewhat deduce obvious truths from thier cause and effect (spiritual or physical). All opinion that come from my personal experiences. (there's that word again)

     Your right, some animals, do create, such as spiders creating a web or ants building a mound. But there not being creative for creatives sake (i.e. artist), there doing what their instinct tells them to do. No monkey says, "hey, I have this vision to paint a women with a complacent look on her face and call it the Mona Lisa and show it to my monkey buddies." We've been given the ability to create functionally and abstractly. I'm sure someone will post about some monkey that paints flowers. Of course that monkey was given a picture of a flower to go by and a banana every time he got it right.(or a cigarette if Michael Crichton is telling you about it). Just my two or three cents. Thanks for the input.

phalanx

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Rep: -1
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #388 on: November 14, 2017, 03:32:15 PM »
phalanx, please stick around.

I'm going skating! I'll be back soon!

fulltechnicalskizzy

  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 1565
  • Rep: 493
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #389 on: November 14, 2017, 03:33:27 PM »
Simon, can you post a recent photo of yourself? I need to know if you're a weird lookin people.