**Official Religious Debate Thread**

[TheCheshireCat]

There is probably little evidence for God, yes you're right. However, there have been cases where patients have out of body experiences, where they seem to float above themselves in the operating room and can perfectly describe what happened despite doctors and nurses verifying that all recording equipment showed a dead person. The doctors/nurses also say that their reports of what happened were amazingly accurate. Is this evidence of God or some strange scientific/electromagnetic who-knows-what anomaly? I don't know, but there are things we can't explain.

 

Also, if there were an omnipotent God, don't you think if he wanted to keep evidence of himself hidden he could? It seems astounding to me that supposedly this universe began when a singular point exploded as a result of gravity going from a purely attractive force in one single instant to a repulsive force (see Fabric of the Cosmos for this explanation). It seems amazing that that resulted eventually in dust clouds which became planets of which only one we know has life. And how did life start if there was no God?

 

I'm as scientific as the next guy, but I think the problem we have as a species is thinking that if we can't see it, touch it, feel it, taste it, or hear it, it isn't there. We assume that if it can't be detected by our machines and instruments or proven in a laboratory setting, it's not real. This is extremely erroneous. And I couldn't agree with Knapplc more - scientists can be just as biased toward evidence as a religious fundamentalist. They have hypotheses that they come up with and they want to find evidence for it, overlooking counter examples all the time. It's a human flaw, not a religious flaw.

 

If there is no God, how do we accept that death is the ultimate end? That's a very difficult concept to come to terms with.

 

Also, as far as prayer not making a difference, I recall a study in one of my courses that found that if someone is prayed for, they actually do better than control subjects even if they don't know they're being prayed for. I remember this because I found it very incredible. I'm going to see if I can find it.

[redout22]

But that's me. What about you? What do you believe, and why do you believe it?

 

I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, that I exist in a fallen world, that I am a sinful creature, and that, although I do not deserve it and could not possibly earn it, I have been given a reprieve from my sins, that I have been justified with God and that when I die I will live with Him in heaven.

 

As for why I believe that, those are very personal reasons that are not open to debate.

I believe the same things you do. To go along with that I believe we have sin because of the original sin Adam and Eve made when they ate the apple in the garden of Eden. I believe Jesus died for us and our sins and I believe that one day he will come back agian.

[Husker_x]

There is probably little evidence for God, yes you're right. However, there have been cases where patients have out of body experiences, where they seem to float above themselves in the operating room and can perfectly describe what happened despite doctors and nurses verifying that all recording equipment showed a dead person. The doctors/nurses also say that their reports of what happened were amazingly accurate. Is this evidence of God or some strange scientific/electromagnetic who-knows-what anomaly? I don't know, but there are things we can't explain.

 

Also, if there were an omnipotent God, don't you think if he wanted to keep evidence of himself hidden he could? It seems astounding to me that supposedly this universe began when a singular point exploded as a result of gravity going from a purely attractive force in one single instant to a repulsive force (see Fabric of the Cosmos for this explanation). It seems amazing that that resulted eventually in dust clouds which became planets of which only one we know has life. And how did life start if there was no God?

 

I'm as scientific as the next guy, but I think the problem we have as a species is thinking that if we can't see it, touch it, feel it, taste it, or hear it, it isn't there. We assume that if it can't be detected by our machines and instruments or proven in a laboratory setting, it's not real. This is extremely erroneous. And I couldn't agree with Knapplc more - scientists can be just as biased toward evidence as a religious fundamentalist. They have hypotheses that they come up with and they want to find evidence for it, overlooking counter examples all the time. It's a human flaw, not a religious flaw.

 

If there is no God, how do we accept that death is the ultimate end? That's a very difficult concept to come to terms with.

 

Also, as far as prayer not making a difference, I recall a study in one of my courses that found that if someone is prayed for, they actually do better than control subjects even if they don't know they're being prayed for. I remember this because I found it very incredible. I'm going to see if I can find it.

 

1. Out of body experiences have plenty of perfectly natural explanations. This is a huge topic in Skeptic World. Michael Shermer has a good section on this in his book Why People Believe Weird Things. Everything from light tunnels to the accuracy of post-op memories is covered here and in several other skeptical sources. It's important to understand the physical process of death and all the science behind it.

 

2. Is it possible that God wants the evidence hidden? Of course it is. But we have two problems. First, if God is hiding the evidence, he's hiding himself, and we now know the pursuit of him is fruitless. Second, this is not what theists claim. They claim that God directly intervened multiple times in human history, and continues to do so today. This claim should be demonstrable if indeed it did or is occurring. Yet no miracle, prophecy or healing has ever been recorded under test conditions. Only in the anecdotal soup of third-hand experience.

 

3. Apparently you haven't heard of theoretical physics. Science requires evidence to give weight to a theory, yes, but no one has ever seen, felt, or smelled gravity. Believing something for which you have no evidence has an unfortunate result: you can literally justify anything. I can believe that I should wield the power of life and death over the world because I have faith it's what God wants. You want to live in that world? Well, too bad. Ask a certain faction of Muslims and you'll find you already do. As to the bias of scientists, yup, they're human. A pity, but Science itself has certain corrective measures to weed out fraud. And new theories are de facto ignored or mocked until they gather enough evidence to usurp long-established theories. This is essential, else there would be too much chaos in the system to be productive if every single idea, however crazy, was given equal merit.

 

4. Yes, the great void after death isn't comforting. It's better than Christ's teachings on Hell, I'd argue, but I sympathize. Personally I don't much mind it, because in some sense I think that the fact that our life ends gives it meaning. Either way, whether or not a belief makes you feel good or not has nothing to do with whether or not said belief is a reflection of reality.

 

5. I'd love to see the study, but I'm not optimistic. You hear these claims from time to time, usually spread by fundamentalists, but either the study doesn't exist, is the product of an overtly biased sample, or not done by actual scientists. But if you can dig it up, I'd be happy to take a look.

[TheCheshireCat]

There is probably little evidence for God, yes you're right. However, there have been cases where patients have out of body experiences, where they seem to float above themselves in the operating room and can perfectly describe what happened despite doctors and nurses verifying that all recording equipment showed a dead person. The doctors/nurses also say that their reports of what happened were amazingly accurate. Is this evidence of God or some strange scientific/electromagnetic who-knows-what anomaly? I don't know, but there are things we can't explain.

 

Also, if there were an omnipotent God, don't you think if he wanted to keep evidence of himself hidden he could? It seems astounding to me that supposedly this universe began when a singular point exploded as a result of gravity going from a purely attractive force in one single instant to a repulsive force (see Fabric of the Cosmos for this explanation). It seems amazing that that resulted eventually in dust clouds which became planets of which only one we know has life. And how did life start if there was no God?

 

I'm as scientific as the next guy, but I think the problem we have as a species is thinking that if we can't see it, touch it, feel it, taste it, or hear it, it isn't there. We assume that if it can't be detected by our machines and instruments or proven in a laboratory setting, it's not real. This is extremely erroneous. And I couldn't agree with Knapplc more - scientists can be just as biased toward evidence as a religious fundamentalist. They have hypotheses that they come up with and they want to find evidence for it, overlooking counter examples all the time. It's a human flaw, not a religious flaw.

 

If there is no God, how do we accept that death is the ultimate end? That's a very difficult concept to come to terms with.

 

Also, as far as prayer not making a difference, I recall a study in one of my courses that found that if someone is prayed for, they actually do better than control subjects even if they don't know they're being prayed for. I remember this because I found it very incredible. I'm going to see if I can find it.

 

1. Out of body experiences have plenty of perfectly natural explanations. This is a huge topic in Skeptic World. Michael Shermer has a good section on this in his book Why People Believe Weird Things. Everything from light tunnels to the accuracy of post-op memories is covered here and in several other skeptical sources. It's important to understand the physical process of death and all the science behind it.

 

2. Is it possible that God wants the evidence hidden? Of course it is. But we have two problems. First, if God is hiding the evidence, he's hiding himself, and we now know the pursuit of him is fruitless. Second, this is not what theists claim. They claim that God directly intervened multiple times in human history, and continues to do so today. This claim should be demonstrable if indeed it did or is occurring. Yet no miracle, prophecy or healing has ever been recorded under test conditions. Only in the anecdotal soup of third-hand experience.

 

3. Apparently you haven't heard of theoretical physics. Science requires evidence to give weight to a theory, yes, but no one has ever seen, felt, or smelled gravity. Believing something for which you have no evidence has an unfortunate result: you can literally justify anything. I can believe that I should wield the power of life and death over the world because I have faith it's what God wants. You want to live in that world? Well, too bad. Ask a certain faction of Muslims and you'll find you already do. As to the bias of scientists, yup, they're human. A pity, but Science itself has certain corrective measures to weed out fraud. And new theories are de facto ignored or mocked until they gather enough evidence to usurp long-established theories. This is essential, else there would be too much chaos in the system to be productive if every single idea, however crazy, was given equal merit.

 

4. Yes, the great void after death isn't comforting. It's better than Christ's teachings on Hell, I'd argue, but I sympathize. Personally I don't much mind it, because in some sense I think that the fact that our life ends gives it meaning. Either way, whether or not a belief makes you feel good or not has nothing to do with whether or not said belief is a reflection of reality.

 

5. I'd love to see the study, but I'm not optimistic. You hear these claims from time to time, usually spread by fundamentalists, but either the study doesn't exist, is the product of an overtly biased sample, or not done by actual scientists. But if you can dig it up, I'd be happy to take a look.

 

3. Yes, I have heard of theoretical physics and I've read many books on it. Hence why I referred to "Fabric of the Cosmos."

 

My question on lack of evidence is this - what evidence would it take for you to believe in God? I'm just curious. Do you need to find a cross floating in the dark reaches of space?

 

I know whether or not I like something has no bearing on reality. I'm merely saying we have to accept death no matter what you believe in - how does one come to terms with it if there is literally nothing after? That was my dilemma.

[bennychico11]

I believe the same things you do. To go along with that I believe we have sin because of the original sin Adam and Eve made when they ate the apple in the garden of Eden. I believe Jesus died for us and our sins and I believe that one day he will come back agian.

 

related to this...has anyone researched into the stories that are remarkably similar to the Jesus Christ one found in the bible? Many of them years before Christ would have supposedly walked the earth. The Egyptian god Horus is the one that has the most similarities to the Christian stories.

Other stories include Mithra, Osiris-Dionysis, even Buddha.

 

 

Christ vs. Horus

1) Both were conceived from a Virgin.

2) Horus was the only begotten Son of the God Osiris and Jesus was the only Son of God ( Yehovah).

3) The Foster Father of Horus was Seb (Jo-Seph), and the Foster Father of Jesus was Joseph.

4) Both Foster Fathers were of Royal descent.

5) Both Horus and Jesus were born in a cave or stable.

6) Annunciation, in both cases was by an angel to the respective Mothers.

7) In both cases the birth was heralded by a star.

8) Birth date, Ancient Egyptians would parade a baby in a manger through the streets typically on Winter solstice (Dec 21st). Jesus birthday celebrations were arranged to coincide with the birth date of Mithra, Dionysis and Sol Invictus (Dec 25th).

9) In both cases the birth announcement was made by angels.

10) In each case the witnesses were shepherds.

11) The later witnesses to the birth were three solar deities in the case of Horus, and three wise men in the case of Jesus.

12) Death threats were made to Horus by Herut, and to Jesus by Herod.

13) Each Mother was warned to hide their infant by a deity.

14) Each had to attend a special ritual at the age of 12 to mark their Rite of Passage.

15) Neither has any history between the ages of 12 and 30.

16) Both were baptised in rivers.

17) Both their baptisers were ultimately beheaded.

18) Both were taken from a desert and up a mountain and tempted by Satan, and both resisted the temptation.

19) Both walked on water, healed the sick,restored sight to the blind and calmed the sea.

20) Horus raised Osiris from the grave and Jesus raised Lazarus from the grave.

21) Location where the resurrection miracle occurred:

Horus: Anu, an Egyptian city where the rites of the death, burial and resurrection of Horus were enacted annually.

 

Jesus: Hebrews added their prefix for house ('beth") to "Anu" to produce "Beth-Anu" or the "House of Anu." Since "u" and "y" were interchangeable in antiquity, "Bethanu" became "Bethany," the location mentioned in John 11.

 

22) Origin of Lazarus' name in the Gospel of John: Asar was an alternative name for Osirus, Horus' father, who Horus raised from the dead. He was referred to as "the Asar," as a sign of respect. Translated into Hebrew, this is "El-Asar." The Romans added the prefix "us" to indicate a male name, producing "Elasarus." Over time, the "E" was dropped and "s" became "z," producing "Lazarus."

23) Both transfigured on a mountain.

24) Both held a sermon on the mount.

25) Both died by crucifixion

26) Both died accompanied by two thieves.

27) Both were buried in a tomb.

28) Both were resurrected after 3 days or 30-38 hours.

29) Both resurrections were announced by women.

30) Future, both reign for 1000 years in the Millennium.

[Husker_x]

There is probably little evidence for God, yes you're right. However, there have been cases where patients have out of body experiences, where they seem to float above themselves in the operating room and can perfectly describe what happened despite doctors and nurses verifying that all recording equipment showed a dead person. The doctors/nurses also say that their reports of what happened were amazingly accurate. Is this evidence of God or some strange scientific/electromagnetic who-knows-what anomaly? I don't know, but there are things we can't explain.

 

Also, if there were an omnipotent God, don't you think if he wanted to keep evidence of himself hidden he could? It seems astounding to me that supposedly this universe began when a singular point exploded as a result of gravity going from a purely attractive force in one single instant to a repulsive force (see Fabric of the Cosmos for this explanation). It seems amazing that that resulted eventually in dust clouds which became planets of which only one we know has life. And how did life start if there was no God?

 

I'm as scientific as the next guy, but I think the problem we have as a species is thinking that if we can't see it, touch it, feel it, taste it, or hear it, it isn't there. We assume that if it can't be detected by our machines and instruments or proven in a laboratory setting, it's not real. This is extremely erroneous. And I couldn't agree with Knapplc more - scientists can be just as biased toward evidence as a religious fundamentalist. They have hypotheses that they come up with and they want to find evidence for it, overlooking counter examples all the time. It's a human flaw, not a religious flaw.

 

If there is no God, how do we accept that death is the ultimate end? That's a very difficult concept to come to terms with.

 

Also, as far as prayer not making a difference, I recall a study in one of my courses that found that if someone is prayed for, they actually do better than control subjects even if they don't know they're being prayed for. I remember this because I found it very incredible. I'm going to see if I can find it.

 

1. Out of body experiences have plenty of perfectly natural explanations. This is a huge topic in Skeptic World. Michael Shermer has a good section on this in his book Why People Believe Weird Things. Everything from light tunnels to the accuracy of post-op memories is covered here and in several other skeptical sources. It's important to understand the physical process of death and all the science behind it.

 

2. Is it possible that God wants the evidence hidden? Of course it is. But we have two problems. First, if God is hiding the evidence, he's hiding himself, and we now know the pursuit of him is fruitless. Second, this is not what theists claim. They claim that God directly intervened multiple times in human history, and continues to do so today. This claim should be demonstrable if indeed it did or is occurring. Yet no miracle, prophecy or healing has ever been recorded under test conditions. Only in the anecdotal soup of third-hand experience.

 

3. Apparently you haven't heard of theoretical physics. Science requires evidence to give weight to a theory, yes, but no one has ever seen, felt, or smelled gravity. Believing something for which you have no evidence has an unfortunate result: you can literally justify anything. I can believe that I should wield the power of life and death over the world because I have faith it's what God wants. You want to live in that world? Well, too bad. Ask a certain faction of Muslims and you'll find you already do. As to the bias of scientists, yup, they're human. A pity, but Science itself has certain corrective measures to weed out fraud. And new theories are de facto ignored or mocked until they gather enough evidence to usurp long-established theories. This is essential, else there would be too much chaos in the system to be productive if every single idea, however crazy, was given equal merit.

 

4. Yes, the great void after death isn't comforting. It's better than Christ's teachings on Hell, I'd argue, but I sympathize. Personally I don't much mind it, because in some sense I think that the fact that our life ends gives it meaning. Either way, whether or not a belief makes you feel good or not has nothing to do with whether or not said belief is a reflection of reality.

 

5. I'd love to see the study, but I'm not optimistic. You hear these claims from time to time, usually spread by fundamentalists, but either the study doesn't exist, is the product of an overtly biased sample, or not done by actual scientists. But if you can dig it up, I'd be happy to take a look.

 

3. Yes, I have heard of theoretical physics and I've read many books on it. Hence why I referred to "Fabric of the Cosmos."

 

My question on lack of evidence is this - what evidence would it take for you to believe in God? I'm just curious. Do you need to find a cross floating in the dark reaches of space?

 

I know whether or not I like something has no bearing on reality. I'm merely saying we have to accept death no matter what you believe in - how does one come to terms with it if there is literally nothing after? That was my dilemma.

 

In reverse order, how I deal with it? I shrug like Sylvio Dante of The Sopranos and say, "Whaddyagonnado?"

 

The other question about evidence, that one's a little trickier, because I don't require proof, since even if we had some monstrous miracle, it wouldn't necessarily mean God did it. But if ten people in the world started winning the lottery every day and each of them claimed it was because Jesus gave them the numbers, that would be the beginnings of good evidence. If an amputee were to regrow his limb in a science lab somewhere, and the healer claimed God gave him the power, that would be pretty good evidence. The problem that we have now is there is quite literally nothing except anecdotal evidence from 2,000 years ago, which if we were to take every account of the supernatural seriously, we would be forced to conclude that Rome was more like Harry Potter than the realm of reality we enjoy today.

 

But for me personally, I can imagine a number of events or predictions that would at the very least provide a reason-based approach to this particular belief. And I'm open to hearing the evidence, because I have no hatred for the idea of God, but I lack a reason to believe in any of the god claims presented to me so far.

[Husker_x]

I believe the same things you do. To go along with that I believe we have sin because of the original sin Adam and Eve made when they ate the apple in the garden of Eden. I believe Jesus died for us and our sins and I believe that one day he will come back agian.

 

related to this...has anyone researched into the stories that are remarkably similar to the Jesus Christ one found in the bible? Many of them years before Christ would have supposedly walked the earth. The Egyptian god Horus is the one that has the most similarities to the Christian stories.

Other stories include Mithra, Osiris-Dionysis, even Buddha.

 

 

Christ vs. Horus

1) Both were conceived from a Virgin.

2) Horus was the only begotten Son of the God Osiris and Jesus was the only Son of God ( Yehovah).

3) The Foster Father of Horus was Seb (Jo-Seph), and the Foster Father of Jesus was Joseph.

4) Both Foster Fathers were of Royal descent.

5) Both Horus and Jesus were born in a cave or stable.

6) Annunciation, in both cases was by an angel to the respective Mothers.

7) In both cases the birth was heralded by a star.

8) Birth date, Ancient Egyptians would parade a baby in a manger through the streets typically on Winter solstice (Dec 21st). Jesus birthday celebrations were arranged to coincide with the birth date of Mithra, Dionysis and Sol Invictus (Dec 25th).

9) In both cases the birth announcement was made by angels.

10) In each case the witnesses were shepherds.

11) The later witnesses to the birth were three solar deities in the case of Horus, and three wise men in the case of Jesus.

12) Death threats were made to Horus by Herut, and to Jesus by Herod.

13) Each Mother was warned to hide their infant by a deity.

14) Each had to attend a special ritual at the age of 12 to mark their Rite of Passage.

15) Neither has any history between the ages of 12 and 30.

16) Both were baptised in rivers.

17) Both their baptisers were ultimately beheaded.

18) Both were taken from a desert and up a mountain and tempted by Satan, and both resisted the temptation.

19) Both walked on water, healed the sick,restored sight to the blind and calmed the sea.

20) Horus raised Osiris from the grave and Jesus raised Lazarus from the grave.

21) Location where the resurrection miracle occurred:

Horus: Anu, an Egyptian city where the rites of the death, burial and resurrection of Horus were enacted annually.

 

Jesus: Hebrews added their prefix for house ('beth") to "Anu" to produce "Beth-Anu" or the "House of Anu." Since "u" and "y" were interchangeable in antiquity, "Bethanu" became "Bethany," the location mentioned in John 11.

 

22) Origin of Lazarus' name in the Gospel of John: Asar was an alternative name for Osirus, Horus' father, who Horus raised from the dead. He was referred to as "the Asar," as a sign of respect. Translated into Hebrew, this is "El-Asar." The Romans added the prefix "us" to indicate a male name, producing "Elasarus." Over time, the "E" was dropped and "s" became "z," producing "Lazarus."

23) Both transfigured on a mountain.

24) Both held a sermon on the mount.

25) Both died by crucifixion

26) Both died accompanied by two thieves.

27) Both were buried in a tomb.

28) Both were resurrected after 3 days or 30-38 hours.

29) Both resurrections were announced by women.

30) Future, both reign for 1000 years in the Millennium.

 

Just for the sake of fairness, I would be VERY skeptical of the god=god claims that you sometimes hear posited about Mithra, Horus, Osiris, etc. What you can sometimes find when looking at the stories is that if you zoom out far enough, the events may look similar in plot structure, but really it's nothing but glorified numerology. When you look at the details, Mithra wasn't 'born of a virgin.' He came from a rock, which is not the same thing. If you look at any two accounts long enough, you can usually string enough quirky details together to form a pattern (check JFK versus the Lincoln assassination, for example). Human thinking gone bad.

 

Edit: I haven't studied them all, so I can't claim they're all fallacious, but you do want to be careful and read the respective stories carefully.

[bennychico11]

When you look at the details, Mithra wasn't 'born of a virgin.' He came from a rock, which is not the same thing.

 

The one's I listed above were for Horus versus Jesus. I just meant there are other similar stories besides just Horus or Jesus. I think it's quite plausible the story of Jesus is just a rendition of the same old mythologies that have been passed throughout time. Except Jesus has a better advertising company

 

edit--

I just found this on a religious site when searching a little bit about Horus. I found it summed up the two main views on the Bible very simply:

 

Most conservative Christians look upon the Bible as a "top-down" document: one revealed by God to humans. Since fraud, deceit, and lying are not attributes normally associated with God, they believe that the Bible -- as God's Word -- is truthful and accurate.

 

Many skeptics view the Bible as a "bottom-up" document: one written by human authors to promote their religious and spiritual beliefs. Such authors are quite capable of adopting religious concepts of other cultures and incorporating them into their literary works.

[Husker_x]

When you look at the details, Mithra wasn't 'born of a virgin.' He came from a rock, which is not the same thing.

 

The one's I listed above were for Horus versus Jesus. I just meant there are other similar stories besides just Horus or Jesus. I think it's quite plausible the story of Jesus is just a rendition of the same old mythologies that have been passed throughout time. Except Jesus has a better advertising company

 

Yeah, like I said, I haven't actually sat down and studied all of them. I did look into Mithra pretty deep, though, and what you essentially have is a religion that migrated from Persia to the Roman legions and beyond. The trick is trying to figure out who borrowed from whom. A lot of the Mithra art that would seem to be Christ actually came after, and as far as I know, Mithraist scholars don't put any credence in the idea that Christ is a borrowed character. If anything it's the other way around. That doesn't stop yahoos like Bill Maher from peddling it, though, which sucks because otherwise intelligent and honest people are duped by bad history and non-scholarly opinions which have no basis in actual evidence. I've heard similar things about Horus, but again, haven't gotten that far yet. Maybe I'll post some findings in the forum if I come across some interesting info.

[lilred]

I wish I could organize all of my thoughts about this debate, but I am finding that difficult. I do, however, agree strongly with the points Husker_x is making.

 

And I know I already said this, so I'm sorry if I'm being annoying, but I really encourage you all to watch this BBC documentary: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=664F2AE1160FF884

It's very germane to this debate and it raises some interesting ideas about how complexity can unexpectedly arise from what seems like complete disorder by the application of very simple rules.

[knapplc]

I wish I could organize all of my thoughts about this debate, but I am finding that difficult. I do, however, agree strongly with the points Husker_x is making.

 

And I know I already said this, so I'm sorry if I'm being annoying, but I really encourage you all to watch this BBC documentary: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=664F2AE1160FF884

It's very germane to this debate and it raises some interesting ideas about how complexity can unexpectedly arise from what seems like complete disorder by the application of very simple rules.

This is all very possible. But it takes leaps of faith to believe what they're positing, which I find interesting.

 

I'm never going to tell anyone I have all the answers. I'll tell you what I believe, but that's where it ends.

 

PS - I don't believe Bennychico really exists. I'm just sayin'.

[lilred]

I disagree entirely that it takes "leaps of faith" but I can see you probably don't want to get back into that

[knapplc]

I disagree entirely that it takes "leaps of faith" but I can see you probably don't want to get back into that

I've sat through lectures by Brian Greene for fun. I've read many of the works of Stephen Hawking. I love this stuff and think everyone, regardless of level of education/understanding, should look into it because it's very important, if not exactly question-answering. But the bottom line is, it's all based on theory. Theory is at the root of every idea and posit, and it always will be. In many ways it's unfair because we can never recreate the BB, and if we could it would probably be a disaster. I'm willing to buy into a LOT of it. If this is entirely natural and accidental reality there MUST be a "came from" point. Right?

[Landlord]

Going back to the "no, or very little, evidence that points towards the existence of God", I'd be interested to see what Huser_x or others would argue against what I claim to be evidence, the universal morality of human beings (my super way too long post a while back). I'm sorry if I missed someone directly countering that post, I know HuskersNow mentioned it a bit but I don't think anyone else said much, I cold be wrong though I've been kind of out of wack the last day and a half.

[Husker_x]

Going back to the "no, or very little, evidence that points towards the existence of God", I'd be interested to see what Huser_x or others would argue against what I claim to be evidence, the universal morality of human beings (my super way too long post a while back). I'm sorry if I missed someone directly countering that post, I know HuskersNow mentioned it a bit but I don't think anyone else said much, I cold be wrong though I've been kind of out of wack the last day and a half.

 

The Argument from Morality is a big topic and a pretty common apologetic. The sociological fact that human beings all share certain moral characteristics is spun every which way to suit whatever world view is in question. C.S. Lewis, if I remember right, used this as one of his strongest points in Mere Christianity. The first thing we have to acknowledge is that we're asking two different question, and try our best not to confuse them.

 

1. Why are we moral?

2. Why should we be moral?

 

The first delves heavily into evolutionary theory. Man is demonstrably a social animal. We work and live in groups an overwhelming amount of the time. In our evolutionary past, members of the group that showed a tendency for lying would be less likely to be trusted. If a given group had too many liars in it, cohesion and unity would break down, making it less likely that the group could effectively hunt and gather. By contrast, groups which did not steal from each other, did not lie, did not cheat or treat each other violently would obviously have a better chance at finding food and building shelter. You could call it natural selection at work. Families that stay together survive together. We can observe similar characteristics in ape species today.

 

The problem a theist has, assuming he rejects evolutionary theory or the theory I outlined above, is what link does human morality have with God? You'd have to start with a begged question that this God is necessarily moral and therefore we are like him. You're thinking backwards, starting with an assumption and then finding the conclusion. There's also the separate issue of getting your morality from the bible or another religious text. Looking through the Old Testament especially presents us with a world completely foreign to any morality a modern American outside of Fred Phelps would ascribe to.

 

The second question is a much tougher one. Survival, essentially, is the best answer. We should be moral because if you place survival as your goal, it is the best way to achieve it. Not lying, killing, stealing, etc. is helpful to the community and increases your odds of passing on your genes or generally living a happy life. But of course the Free Rider Objection is an enormous problem in philosophy, because once a society reaches a certain size and complexity, a person can do an immoral act without getting caught or destroying the society. So we're back to the question, why be moral? Perhaps the best answer is to simply say people will, for the most part, be moral. They want to be moral and generally behave that way. Of course there are the sociopaths who do not have any empathy in them, but this actually poses more of a problem for the "basic goodness of the soul" Christians than it does materialists, who could pass it off as a simple mental disorder usually only brought on by early childhood conditioning (abuse, etc.).

 

Some thoughts, anyway.