Do you beileve in evolution? Why or why not?

[El_Machinae]

Well, the whole idea is scientifically untenable because god really has no evidence.

Except that there's evidence that the Universe had a beginning, so that's indirect evidence that something might have caused the Universe to begin. Sure, there are theories that it didn't need a 'cause', but the current evidence fits both theories ...

 

[Perfection]

God judges what is moral or immoral though...not to mention that whole infallible thing again.

God doesn't need to explain anything to you. You must have faith that he has good reasons for what he does. Etc, etc...

What makes god's perception of morality better than mine?

 

[El_Machinae]

God judges what is moral or immoral though...not to mention that whole infallible thing again.

God doesn't need to explain anything to you. You must have faith that he has good reasons for what he does. Etc, etc...

I get the feeling that neither of us are contributing original thought to this debate, eh?

 

[El_Machinae]

What makes god's perception of morality better than mine?

What makes your perception of morality better than a dog's?

 

[shadow2k]

Well, the whole idea is scientifically untenable because god really has no evidence.

You wouldn't need to turn god into a lab rat. I believe ethical experimentation is alllowed on sentient subjects. After all, isn't that what psychology researchers do every day?

God has no evidence, because he is a matter of faith. Faith defined as firm belief in something for which no proof exists. If we could prove god existed, it wouldn't be faith, it would be fact.

 

[Perfection]

What makes your perception of morality better than a dog's?

I happen to be the one making the judgement. (Plus weather dogs have morality in the sense we do may be questionable)

 

[shadow2k]

I get the feeling that neither of us are contributing original thought to this debate, eh?

Yeah, probably right. I'll stop with the Devil's advocate thing, although it is pretty amusing.

As for the whole morals thing...God is infallible. He can't be wrong. So his perception of morality will always be Perfect.

You can't argue against omnipotent and infallible.

 

[El_Machinae]

I happen to be the one making the judgement. (Plus weather dogs have morality in the sense we do may be questionable)

So, that means that your definition of morality is superior to everyone's? (whether humans have the sense of morality that God does is questionable)

 

[Perfection]

God has no evidence, because he is a matter of faith. Faith defined as firm belief in something for which no proof exists. If we could prove god existed, it wouldn't be faith, it would be fact.

Well, I think it's fallacious to a make a positive claim on something other than empirical evidence.

 

[El_Machinae]

We make theories without empricial evidence all the time, though ... and then we collect evidence that confirms or denies the theory, right?

And right now, the theory that the Universe was created by something has pretty good evidence ...
Just as good as the theory that the Universe wasn't created ...

Now, the theory that God CARES about us is certainly lacking in evidence, eh?

 

[mdwh]

Except that there's evidence that the Universe had a beginning, so that's indirect evidence that something might have caused the Universe to begin.

Yes, but he said there's no evidence for *God*.

I know it's a common theist trick to interchange "God" with "anything which caused the rest of the Universe to start", but that's just wordplay.

 

[mdwh]

We make theories without empricial evidence all the time, though ... and then we collect evidence that confirms or denies the theory, right?

Scientifically, the word is conjecture, not theory. And we make hypotheses to fit evidence, which we test, to form a theory.

And right now, the theory that the Universe was created by something has pretty good evidence ...
Just as good as the theory that the Universe wasn't created ...

We need to be careful with our definitions - what you say doesn't make sense, since the Universe is everything which exists, so it's confusing to say "Something created everything which exists".

I think what you mean to say is that the two possibilities are:
- The universe had a start point (eg, the big bang).
- The universe as we see it today came from somethig which always existed (eg, something before the big bang).

It's not clear how this question is equivalent the issue of God. People say that God always existed, and created the universe, but it could be that the big bang was caused by something non-intelligent and non-sentient, which always existed. Or it could be that God sprung into existence, and then created the Universe.

 

[El_Machinae]

the Universe is everything which exists

You're right. By 'Universe', I'm referring to everything that resulted from the Big Bang, including whatever the Big Bang was originally made of.

I've said before that humans could create their own Big Bang and create a new Universe. In that example, WE would not be included in the new Universe, just what resulted in the new Big Bang. Does that make my position more clear?

 

[El_Machinae]

I know it's a common theist trick to interchange "God" with "anything which caused the rest of the Universe to start", but that's just wordplay.

I consider "God" to be the Creator (which I actually think exists). But I do not attribute things like sentience, morality, design, or intention to this event/being ... mainly because I don't think there's useful evidence for any of those attributes.

 

[EdCase]

You'll note that you're asking "why is there a why?". I think that's funny.

Has the question "why does the universe exist?" ever occurred to you? Don't you want an answer to that question?

Science cannot answer the question, but it is there.

Sorry to reply so late,real life intruded.

Indeed what I asked was in effect that. But more clearly questioning the need for a reason..not everything has a reason to be, it just is.

As for the why does it exist? I think it should be obvious by now I am far more interested in the physical how rather than the metaphysical why.

 

[EdCase]

What makes your perception of morality better than a dog's?

Do dogs have morales? If they do do they also have souls?

I patiently await the answer.

 

[El_Machinae]

It was a rhetorical response to Perfection's post.

The truth is that I cannot comprehend (by default) a morality with more authority than human morality. We may disagree, but mainly because we don't have all the facts regarding what we're debating.

Regarding whether dogs have morality ... I certainly don't need. Some certainly seem to.

I am far more interested in the physical how rather than the metaphysical why.

Then we're easily in aggrement. I think that evolution is a perfectly valid theory that's supported by the evidence.

 

[mdwh]

I consider "God" to be the Creator (which I actually think exists). But I do not attribute things like sentience, morality, design, or intention to this event/being ... mainly because I don't think there's useful evidence for any of those attributes.

I agree - and this is the problem. Many people may say they believe the universe had a beginning. But even if we call that first thing "God", this is entirely different to what most religious people mean when they talk about "God", since they do attach those attributes.

 

[punkbass2000]

And where is it written that there has to be a why?

Well said.

 

[punkbass2000]

Physics alone is.

Oooh. The crowd goes silent.