Going by your last couple of paragraphs, I'd say you're arguing for the existence of God because morality exists, but I reject your formulation. God does not exist and yet beauty and morality still exist. You reached a ridiculous conclusion but failed to realize that it undermined your whole point by ignoring it. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" does not prove that beauty does not exist! So if beauty still exists even in the absence of God, so does morality! Question: Do the stars exist even though you can't reach them to prove for yourself that they do? The claim that those little points of light in the sky are enormous balls of plasma, vastly larger than the earth itself, is something you can't verify for yourself, all you can do is take other people's word for it. So are those stars a human construct? If so, then they aren't real, but a delusion.
This is a simple logical exercise. Delusions in a godless universe: 1. There is a God 2. God Created everything and everyone 3. There is a soul 4. There is an absolute moral code 5. There is a heaven and hell 6. Love is a deeply spiritual experience 7. Life has purpose and meaning 8. God has ordained gifts and duties for man 9. 'Good' and 'bad' are Real Things, ordained by God. 10. God is good 11. God loves you 12. God created you for a purpose ..there are likely more.. I'll leave this here, but will start a new thread with this expanded topic.. since we seem to be repeating ourselves in this one.
How does this ad hom reply relate to my post? I offered logical progressions, depending on which assumption you make, about the universe. You return an ad hominem response...
As a delusion, only. Beauty, Love, Purpose, Good, Evil.. these are abstracts that rely on a spiritual sense, or soul, to be valid. They are meaningless platitudes in a godless, material universe.
The entire thread is an ad him against people who don't believe in god(s), so why should I treat it as anything else?
Really. A philosophical discussion about the bases and interelation of morality, instinct, and law is an 'Attack on atheists!!!' Seriously?
I'm sorry, are you talking to me? You'll have to use bible quotes if you want to talk to me because everything outside the realm of god doesn't really exist, they are delusions.
Like Atheism? No blind faith, there? Why are some of the resident atheists here so threatened by philosophical discussions? Why must they lash out defensively, instead of logically examining the implications of beliefs? Some people are too invested and personally attached to their opinions, to follow their implications..
Ah, well. You seem to prefer a rousing, 'Atheists vs Christians!' flame war, while I'm trying to examine existential philosophy. ..maybe another time, on another topic. Oh, and I'll give you a bible verse, that you asked for... Prov.16:25 There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.
There is a true Buddha in family life; there is a real Tao in everyday activities. If people can be sincere and harmonious, promoting communication with a cheerful demeanor and friendly words, that is much better than formal meditation practice. ~Lao Tzu
What basis is there, for 'good' and 'evil', other than the relative consequence to the individual? If i take something from you, it is 'bad' to you, but 'good' for me. Why would there be an overriding moral truth to define 'good' and 'bad' in absolute terms? For those who reflect on themselves, everything they encounter is medicine. For those who attack others, every thought is a weapon. One is the way to initiate all good, one is the way to deepen all evil. They are as far apart as sky and earth. ~Lao Tzu
For some atheists, I'm sure there is some blind faith involved. Just as there are some theists who base their conclusions on reason and evidence; I disagree with them about where that evidence and reason leads, but there are plenty of deists, for example, that I wouldn't say have blind faith, nor would I say that about anyone who believes due to, say, a near death experience. I think there is a natural explanation, but I wouldn't say that kind of person had blind faith. The argument presented here in this OP however? Your beliefs about animal life that have been proven false through empirical facts? Yes, the argument as you have presented it is blind faith, and it depends on the exact sort of "prove it to me or it doesn't exist" fallacious argument that you have correctly derided elsewhere. I've logically presented a plausible natural explanation for moral senses, and your only responses have been claims about animal behavior that are demonstrably false. Meanwhile I've shown many logical flaws and outright contradicts in your own theory that have gone completely unaddressed. I'm sorry, man, but I'm not the one who is threatened here. The "implications" you've claimed are only straw men, and I've shown why. It has nothing to do with opinions either. I'm basing my position one objective fact while you are basing your opinions on premises that lead to contradictions, that are disputed be objective fact, and that depend on a line of reasoning that you have correctly identified as invalid.
You've mostly provided dogmatic assertions of your opinion, not a rational progression. And your steady ad hom streams at me ignore my points with eye rolling and dismissal. Facts? Hardly. This is not a 'rational debate', so i usually just pass over your posts as needling and provocation.
I've shown empirical evidence that pro-social, other-regarding behavior exists in nature, that your "law of the jungle" view is a fantasy. You are also misusing the concept of "ad hominem." That's not what it means. And, no, I haven't ignored your posts. I've gone point-by-point more than once. If you are ever interested in debate or discussion, I'll still be around. If you plan on only doing the rhetorical equivalent of stamping your feet and declaring all of your positions self-evident, even in the face of the evidence against them, then you are of course free to do that. But that's proselytizing and preaching, not debating or discussing anything.
Again, I don't see the connection. Why do you have to have a soul to be in love? Do atheists never fall in love? Why do you have to have a spiritual sense to have a purpose? Do agnostics have no purpose in life? What if Allah exists and God doesn't? Does that mean all of Western Civilization is a delusion? Does that mean good & evil are flipped, that to be good means killing others and evil is not killing others? So then all of the values of Western Civilization are meaningless platitudes, even though we DON'T live in a godless, material universe? Your premises and conclusions don't add up.
..so many questions, but you don't address my arguments at all... because love is a biological, animal instinct, in a godless universe. 'Soul Love!' is a human fantasy. No, they have animal urges to reproduce, only. Hearts and flowers, 'Love!' is a poetic fantasy. (presumably for seduction purposes) ..not a 'sense', but a spiritual reality is needed, for there to be some higher purpose. Otherwise, survival and reproduction is the only animal 'purpose' anyone can have. Any other imagined 'meaning!' to life is a delusion, in a godless universe. nobody does, in a godless universe. ..then it is not a godless universe. There is s basis for morality, meaning, and the soul. civilization is real. The basis for it may be a delusion, depending on the actual reality of the universe. 'good and evil' are meaningless, relative platitudes, in a godless universe. Everyone can make up their own version, and define it however they wish. There is nothing and no One to say otherwise, in a godless universe. Neither Hitler nor Mother Theresa have a monopoly on defining 'good and evil.' they could be Real Things, if we live in a God made universe. They are empty platitudes in a godless universe. I don't think you have followed the reasoning, but jump back and forth between parallel universes.. one godless, and one God made. You have to stay in one universe or the other, and follow the implications.
For 'Morality' to be a Real Thing, there has to be an overriding definition of 'good and evil'. Otherwise, there is only preference and expediency, with nothing absolute. What basis is there, for 'good' and 'evil', other than the relative consequence to the individual? If i take something from you, it is 'bad' to you, but 'good' for me. Why would there be an overriding moral truth to define 'good' and 'bad' in absolute terms? Nobody wants to address this reasoning?
Where does God get his definition of good and evil? Your "solution" does not address the problem you've posed. All it does is kick the can down the road.
I have answered this objection several times, in multiple threads: The question is the REALITY (or not), of morality. If it is a real, God Embedded Thing, then it is real, and not a delusion. Speculations of 'Why!' 'How!' God embedded this morality do not detract from the reality of it... if we assume morality as a Real Thing.
Neither of those quotes address the question at all. Not even close. Your argument involves special pleading. If man's morality demands an explanation, and that explanation is God, then God's morality now demands explanation. Which embedded him with his morals? If no one did then, by your logic, his morals are a delusion.
I can only present the reasoning, i cannot compel understanding. Everyone's reasoning stands or falls on their own.. the reader can follow them, or not.
Your argument has been shown to be internally inconsistent, self-contradictory. Reasoning stands on reason, not wishful thinking.
