MAJOR derail from Screwball Thread

[ApologiaPhoenix]

OK so you would say genocide is evil, or murder is evil, rape is evil, and so on .... are examples of objective natural (and universal) laws. Great I agree, but would you also say a god imputes these rules in our physiological construct (whether biologically or metaphysically)?

In other words is it god who gives us our conscience, and if that's how you distinguish your view from my own ..... how do you possibly propose to prove it in a debate?

I would say that God hardwires us to recognize moral truths but that moral truths exist outside of us and we find them by studying the nature of being.

[bridgeforsale]

I would say that God hardwires us to recognize moral truths but that moral truths exist outside of us and we find them by studying the nature of being.

OK but do you really think that's provable? That's really an intelligent design debate.

I know of studies that show it's perfectly possible the first biological organism could have formed in a primordial soup (or through a series of chemical reactions in the early history of our planet, during its first few hundred million years of life). We have a fossil record of evolution dating back over 3 billion years, and the skeletons of 14 different species of hominid (our evolutionary ancestors).

In fact there's even been studies that show very clearly intelligence can form through randomness (and indeed as far as we know it's the only way it could have formed).

Do you really think you can prove a god preprogrammed the universe to do exactly what it did when it blew up from a singularity, and biological life to do exactly what it did (beginning with it's early formation)?

Here's the thing, the first law of thermodynamics is called the principal of conservation of energy. That means energy (and hence matter) cannot be either created or destroyed (it can only be transformed).

How do you think you will show a god was needed to create something that by it's physical nature cannot be created?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

OK but do you really think that's provable? That's really an intelligent design debate.

That depends on what you mean by provable. If you mean something like mathematical, no.

I know of studies that show it's perfectly possible the first biological organism could have formed in a primordial soup (or through a series of chemical reactions in the early history of our planet, during its first few hundred million years of life). We have a fossil record of evolution dating back over 3 billion years, and the skeletons of 14 different species of hominid (our evolutionary ancestors).

How life came about is irrelevant to my case.

In fact there's even been studies that show very clearly intelligence can form through randomness (and indeed as far as we know it's the only way it could have formed).

That'd be for the scientists to decide, although I do not believe truth can form that way nor can information.

Do you really think you can prove a god preprogrammed the universe to do exactly what it did when it blew up from a singularity, and biological life to do exactly what it did (beginning with it's early formation)?

I'm not interested in debating science but morality.

Here's the thing, the first law of thermodynamics is called the law of conservation of energy. That means energy (and hence matter) cannot be either created or destroyed (it can only be transformed).

How do you think you will show a god was needed to create something that by it's physical nature cannot be created?

Actually, they've never been observed to be created. I believe that they were created at one time, but that isn't my topic of debate. That's for a scientist. I'm only interested in morality.

[Challenger Grim]

I'm not sure if I can even determine exactly why this is the case. I also do admit I no longer view many of the things I once despised, as sinful. I'm far more liberal in my rhetorical treatment of abortion, homosexuals, etc.

Which is funny because according to natural selection, abortion and homosexuality would be bigger evils than under Christianity.

[bridgeforsale]

Which is funny because according to natural selection, abortion and homosexuality would be bigger evils than under Christianity.

I suppose you're right .... and while I still have a problem with abortion (I do think it's a bad thing), and I'm still not enthusiastic about gay marriage (though I don't oppose it either), my positions aren't much different than the average Christian these days.

However, I could probably make a case that abortion is consistent with natural selection (although I'm not sure I'd want to). However, remember natural selection is adaptive evolution, it does not mean (and has never meant) survival of the physically strongest or genetically superior.

It's usually a very mundane and seemingly inconsequential trait that determines the survivability of a species (that has nothing to do with its relative strength or intelligence compared to other creatures in its biological family).

[Eric Schmidt]

(and why did [Justin Martyr] have to deal with charges the Jesus narrative stole fragments from earlier Hellenic myths).

He didn't. I already replied to you on this in post #128, but apparently you didn't notice it.

[Challenger Grim]

I suppose you're right .... and while I still have a problem with abortion (I do think it's a bad thing), and I'm still not enthusiastic about gay marriage (though I don't oppose it either), my positions aren't much different than the average Christian these days.

However, I could probably make a case that abortion is consistent with natural selection (although I'm not sure I'd want to). However, remember natural selection is adaptive evolution, it does not mean (and has never meant) survival of the physically strongest or genetically superior.

It's usually a very mundane and seemingly inconsequential trait that determines the survivability of a species (that has nothing to do with its relative strength or intelligence compared to other creatures in its biological family).

Yeah, except abortion would be the exact opposite of what a species would need to survive. The result of evolution is for a trait to become fixed in a population. If abortion was to become "fixed" in a population, that's what we'd call: extinct.

[bridgeforsale]

I'm not interested in debating science but morality.

don't we agree there's a universal and objective moral law?

I think you mean to say you want to debate metaphysics right? In other words you want to make a philosophical case for god (based on causative principles i.e. a "first cause" argument).

I don't mind .... but how much of a background in philosophy do you have?

Actually, they've never been observed to be created. I believe that they were created at one time, but that isn't my topic of debate. That's for a scientist. I'm only interested in morality.

Umm??? Not sure what you're trying to say here. If you're trying to say god is first cause, and "hard wired" mankind to be moral .... then how do you avoid broaching science (at least a little bit)?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

don't we agree there's a universal and objective moral law?

I think you mean to say you want to debate metaphysics right? In other words you want to make a philosophical case for god (based on causative principles i.e. a "first cause" argument).

I don't mind .... but how much of a background in philosophy do you have?

Oh I have a good background, but I would mainly be focusing on God being the source of the Natural Law.

Umm??? Not sure what you're trying to say here. If you're trying to say god is first cause, and "hard wired" mankind to be moral .... then how do you avoid broaching science (at least a little bit)?

Oh there is some science involved of course, but I'm saying I'm not arguing about the origins of the universe or the chemical make-up of man. The first law refers to the universe. I'm only interested in the occupants of the universe.

[bridgeforsale]

Yeah, except abortion would be the exact opposite of what a species would need to survive. The result of evolution is for a trait to become fixed in a population. If abortion was to become "fixed" in a population, that's what we'd call: extinct.

obviously killing your offspring is counter-intuitive to survival as a species. Nevertheless it's not necessarily counter-intuitive to adaptive evolution (or natural selection).

If you want to view intelligence as the hallmark indicator of success in human evolution, and acknowledge abortions are usually procured by the poor and unintelligent, then . . . (I'm sure you see where the slippery slope of this logic leads).

Like I said, not an argument I'm comfortable making (since I view eugenics as a moral aberration).

[bridgeforsale]

Oh I have a good background, but I would mainly be focusing on God being the source of the Natural Law.

I'm saying to do this you have to first prove god exists?

[bridgeforsale]

Holy smokes .... I just realized 25 pages of me debating theists. Damn

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I'm saying to do this you have to first prove god exists?

No. I think the existence of the Natural Law is a proof of the existence of God.

[Challenger Grim]

obviously killing your offspring is counter-intuitive to survival as a species. Nevertheless it's not necessarily counter-intuitive to adaptive evolution (or natural selection).

If you want to view intelligence as the hallmark indicator of success in human evolution, and acknowledge abortions are usually procured by the poor and unintelligent, then . . . (I'm sure you see where the slippery slope of this logic leads).

Like I said, not an argument I'm comfortable making (since I view eugenics as a moral aberration).

See we agree about something.

Of course, the flip side is species that do harm their own young (like Komodo Dragons), the young usually have a way to save themselves.

[bridgeforsale]

No. I think the existence of the Natural Law is a proof of the existence of God.

OK, well this is probably a pretty quick subject (and tomorrow I'm PCS'ing, so I'll be traveling for the next few days).

Why don't you tell me why you think natural law is a proof of god?