The Evolution of Morality

[AV1611VET]

It really sounds to me like picking and choosing. But each to his own I guess!

Sounds to me like you are too.

 

[EternalDragon]

It is well known that the best way to get someone to be an Atheist is to have them read ALL of the bible,
Christians only read or are taught the parts of the bible that make them all warm and fuzzy inside,
if they read it ALL they would see what a blood thirsty book it really is and not believe a word of it.

Most Christians have never read the bible they just believe what they have been told because of gullibility.

I think you have some misconceptions. Most Christians have read the Bible (me included) front to back and studied/read many parts more than once. Most Christians do not and are told (by God's word) not to trust what man says. They read and study for themselves.

In fact many Christian churches have a reading schedule for reading through the entire bible in one year. My church has a study group that goes through different books over the year although that is a bit slower as it is one day a week.

 

[Ginger123]

I think you have some misconceptions.

I have no misconceptions because I am not bothered, I only know what I have heard ex Christians say about reading the bible all the way through.
Have you seen The Atheist Experience Show? they take questions from Christians and Atheists and discuss them,
I realise you might not have much to do with other opinions about Christianity but why don't you give them a call and put them straight? [it's free] or just listen to what some of the callers have to say, you might have a laugh if nothing else.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Putting words into my mouth AV? Really now; when did I say anything about sacrificing sheep? It makes no difference to me. Anyone professing to take the Bible literally should abide to ALL the laws of the Bible. All I am saying is you cannot pick and choose. If you on the other hand take the Bible as a spiritual guide then you are not obliged to adhere to such laws.
All I am saying is put your money where your mouth is.

By the way I sold land to an American foundation. They built a school that adheres strictly to evangelical, Baptist, doctrine and they even believe that only the various protestant faiths are Christian. Guess what? This Easter they forced the primary school children to witness a lamb sacrifice to God. So My good man, it seems that some of your brethren do indeed sacrifice animals to God!

If they truly did this they are rejecting Christ and that He died for their sins. They are rejecting Christianity at its most basic of doctrine. If this is true they are not adhering to evangelical, Baptist doctrine and are actually denying Christ's death and resurrection.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It makes no difference to me. Anyone professing to take the Bible literally should abide to ALL the laws of the Bible. All I am saying is you cannot pick and choose. If you on the other hand take the Bible as a spiritual guide then you are not obliged to adhere to such laws.
All I am saying is put your money where your mouth is.

You were shown what the verses you "picked" meant in context and literally. You can choose to believe what you want, but you do so ignoring what you have been shown. There are two Religions or religious groups within the Bible. There are verses that relate to one or both of the groups throughout. It takes a deep study and revelation to understand the messages to both.

 

[Ginger123]

If they truly did this they are rejecting Christ and that He died for their sins. They are rejecting Christianity at its most basic of doctrine. If this is true they are not adhering to evangelical, Baptist doctrine and are actually denying Christ's death and resurrection.

Sadly Oncedeceived that's only your take on Christianity others however have a different take,
the strange thing is you are all reading the same book so how can that happen? could God be a bad writer?
or are people only reading it as they want to read it and taking only what they want to take?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Perhaps reading it yourself would enlighten you instead of making blank accusations against those that have read and studied it.

I don't know about you, but before I had aid of the Holy Spirit the Bible just seemed like a dead boring book. It took God's revelation to open it up and create the living word. I can read a passage twenty times and then suddenly God opens it for me and I am amazed that I had not understood it until then.

 

[Ginger123]

I don't know about you, but before I had aid of the Holy Spirit the Bible just seemed like a dead boring book. It took God's revelation to open it up and create the living word. I can read a passage twenty times and then suddenly God opens it for me and I am amazed that I had not understood it until then.

No it's just you changing your mind because you want to.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sadly Oncedeceived that's only your take on Christianity others however have a different take,
the strange thing is you are all reading the same book so how can that happen? could God be a bad writer?
or are people only reading it as they want to read it and taking only what they want to take?

Ginger, the whole doctrine of Christianity is Christ. That HE died for our sins and lives again. IF you take Christ out there is no Christianity.

Yes, people can be lead astray and are. That is what the Bible is for. To remain true to the gospels. IF someone teaches other than that Christ died for our sins they teach falsely. Period.

1 Timothy 6:3-5

King James Version (KJV)

3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No it's just you changing your mind because you want to.

I want to change my mind??? Why would I want to change my mind?

 

[Ginger123]

Ginger, the whole doctrine of Christianity is Christ. That HE died for our sins and lives again. IF you take Christ out there is no Christianity.

Yes, people can be lead astray and are. That is what the Bible is for. To remain true to the gospels. IF someone teaches other than that Christ died for our sins they teach falsely. Period.

Don't tell me tell them.. 30.000 flavours at the last count and all of them reading from the same book,
you tell me what's happening? can you smell fish because [like you] they all think they have it right.

 

[Ginger123]

I want to change my mind??? Why would I want to change my mind?

Because you so want it all to be true, why? because you don't want to die when you die,
you want to believe that you are going to have another life, that's why.

 

[Ginger123]

Oncedeceived you are so in love with fooling yourself about a God the very very last thing you want to do is stop,
if you stopped you think you would fall apart, you might but only for a while then you would be free to be yourself.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Don't tell me tell them.. 30.000 flavours at the last count and all of them reading from the same book,
you tell me what's happening? can you smell fish because [like you] they all think they have it right.

It doesn't matter the denomination. All Christianity is based on the Life, death and resurrection of Christ.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm not sure what more would be required, but alright.

That's still quite a bit more than half a million. How much time do you think is required for a lifeform that is very generalized and simple, bristling with as yet unformed potential, to develop into more refined forms?

I would be interested to know how long you think it would take to evolve not just one type of eye but all the different eyes found in the Cambrian.

We develop the behaviors and interactions, then we discover truths about the best ones.

How do we determine the truth and which are best?

Yes, on some level I imagine most lifeforms are aware of what they need to survive.

So if they have this level of awareness of self preservation and little or no awareness of how cooperation will aid in that survival, how does the survival of the species or group arise from self preservation?

That does not appear to be the case, no. That was my point - intellect is a handy trait for survival, but its not a vital one. At least not for some living things.

Ok. We have determined that things survive that lack intelligence, we see things surviving such as neanderthals without thinking about anything more than self preservation. So where do we find cooperation being valued enough to evolve morality? We don't find neanderthals or even early humans thinking about the group as a self preservation tool, so if we find our ancestors sacrificing self for the group, how do we explain that?

Would you not agree that for morality to have evolved it would have to be the same for all humans at least? If it were evolved behavior wouldn't be evolved within the species? If so, why do we have such differences? If it is hard wired into our brains it would seem to be universal within the species would it not?

That the universe is the way it is does not, for me, constitute evidence that it was supernaturally created. Not in and of itself.

It's not about what I want or would rather see - what I do see does not point to the supernatural. If I could see miraculous violations of the natural laws we observe, that would at least be evidence that the supernatural exists.

But if there were miraculous violations of the natural laws they would be considered natural anyway. Anything in nature would be considered nature. No matter what you would see, whether it be like we see with rules and laws or whether there were violations of those laws you would see it as the way it is. If you think about it, why are there rules and laws that the universe adheres to if the universe was a result of unplanned and entirely unguided processes? How do laws and rules create themselves?

It could still have laws and rules to learn - my point is that we do not observe violations of these laws and rules. Life exists in accordance with them, not in violation of them. If life existed in violation of all universal law, I imagine that many people would be holding that up as proof positive that we are specially created and that we exist by the will of a supernatural force that supersedes natural law.

That can go both ways, correct? If we saw life existed in violation to universal law we would see naturalists explaining it as a natural violation of the universal law.

With the universal laws of the universe, we see precision and mathematical logic within the very elements of the universe. The universe can be explained mathematically. The universe was mathematical cohesive before man discovered mathematical equation.

It would be a powerful testament to the existence of the supernatural, and almost certainly evidence that the supernatural was interested in the existence of life. A stronger testament than a universe where the supernatural is not evidently required for the continuous function and existence of life.

However, you do not know whether that is even true. You do not know that the universe could have expanded without supernatural aid. You do not know that the universe would not collapse if the undetectable force that keeps it from collapsing was gone. You don't know what that force is but it is required for our universes existence. You don't know what supernatural aid is required for the continuous function of existence of the universe or life itself.

Mundane only in the sense that it is not supernatural. I think things can be mind-blowingly wonderful without being magic.

Why would it be magic?

I haven't the foggiest idea. I'm not sure what specific parameters you are referring to - some of the stuff I read about physics and gravity is over my head. I couldn't begin to tell you why they are as they are, or what ramifications them being different would have on life. Only that their current state does not lead me to conclude that 'only God could have done it.'

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

1. strong nuclear force constant
   if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
   if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
   if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
   if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
   if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
   if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
   if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
   if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
   if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
   if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
   if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
   if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
   if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
   if larger: no galaxies would form
   if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
   if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
   if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

We are talking very precise in all of these.
Continued in next post.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think the scenarios I mention above would do the job better.

How would you know? There already is the scenario that the universe requires great precision for life, laws that the universe must adhere to and exact requirements for life, yet you claim that these are all just how it all happened naturally. You see that there are forces that keep the universe together today that are not even detectable on their own, but can only be known to exist due to the way things behave in regard to them. Yet you claim that there is no need for anything supernatural. You can claim that we don't know now but we might later, but we know much when it comes to gravity but we still don't have a grasp on what it is, how it exists. We know it exists because of the effects of it, but we don't even know what it is.

I do, actually. God could still really be responsible, though I do not see any reason to come to that conclusion. There may be many questions about existence to which I am forced to answer, truthfully, 'I don't know.' I don't leap directly to 'therefore it must be God,' however. I'm fine with 'I don't know' until I get further information.

Which is sensible. However to claim supernatural is not required when you are not aware of how much there is to explain naturally that defies natural explanations is basing your conclusions on your worldview rather than the evidence out there. You might not know, but you can make an educated determination based on what you have available to you. The fine tuning is an example of this. There are articles out there that do not require a PhD in physics that give a good easy to understand run down of the parameters that are required to allow for life and the universe to exist. There is a consensus of Physicists that claim the parameters are so precise that they appear designed. Granted appearance of design does not prove design. It does however, support it.

Sure we can. We look at someone making the sacrifice, we evaluate their reasons, we decide whether it was noble or not.

We can indeed, but what of the person who made the sacrifice? That needs to be known to make that sacrifice.

Any evidence or reason. If I hold a position based on faith that is incorrect, and put faith above reason and evidence, then I've left myself with no way to correct my position. If I cared at all about whether or not my beliefs were true, then that would be a sorry state of affairs.

Reason is not left at the door for faith. Interpretations may lead some to do so. However, when one knows that God exists and is who He claims to be, it is not a matter of dismissing evidence but evaluating it through a different lens.

But you don't agree.

Do you think that people go to hell because they do not believe in God or because they will not accept God's rules?

What's so perfect about Him that, by comparrison, all humans deserve eternal torment?

If God exists and has created the universe as He claims, do you think that He deserves credit for it? Does He deserve appreciation for the very breath we take each moment? Does He deserve to be viewed as a Creator, if He in fact created us? IF HE deserves these does He not deserve to live with those who wish to accept and love Him for it or with those who refuse to accept and show appreciation to Him? Now is it true that there are those who deserve judgement? Someone that kills someone else without due cause, do they deserve judgement and punishment? Are there those who steal from others, do they deserve judgement and punishment? IF yes, we do see that there is a moral code that we adhere to that says to do these things causes them to be judged and punishment to be made if they are found guilty. Is this moral or immoral? We would claim this is a moral judgement and punishment is deserved. If we are all morally guilty in the eyes of God because He is perfect and requires those around Him to be moral, do we deserve punishment? If so, would we wish to have mercy? If we want mercy and God devised a way to show mercy if we only allow Him His status of Creator and God. A simple way to avoid punishment and to live forever without punishment. Is that a fair exchange?

As I said, I would have many questions I'd want answered before taking any further steps. The fact of His existence, while it would certainly be incredible, would not alone compel worship from me. There are many things that exist which I do not worship.

Which comes down to a very fine point. Perhaps you refuse to worship God. Perhaps you have reason to believe He exists but you will not worship Him because you will not worship period? I don't know that to be the case but is that possible?


Ok you believe in free will. So in naturalistic explanations why do you think free will exists.

 

[bhsmte]

Oncedeceived you are so in love with fooling yourself about a God the very very last thing you want to do is stop,
if you stopped you think you would fall apart, you might but only for a while then you would be free to be yourself.

I think you made your point and psychological needs are indeed quite powerful and can lead us to need to believe in a variety of things.

With that said, I think you are being a little rough on once deceived, if she wants to believe in what she does, that is her business.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because you so want it all to be true, why? because you don't want to die when you die,
you want to believe that you are going to have another life, that's why.

Why would I read the Bible and determine after multitude of times that I have a new awareness of what it means? It is not wanting to believe something or something else, it is simply a new meaning to the words.

It has nothing to do with afterlife or doctrine, it has to do with seeing words in a new way.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oncedeceived you are so in love with fooling yourself about a God the very very last thing you want to do is stop,
if you stopped you think you would fall apart, you might but only for a while then you would be free to be yourself.

This is simply crazy. I love to fool myself? Why would someone love to fool themselves? It just doesn't make sense. Why does it matter to you anyway?

 

[Ginger123]

This is simply crazy. I love to fool myself? Why would someone love to fool themselves? It just doesn't make sense. Why does it matter to you anyway?

It doesn't, but unlike you I care about other people.