The Moral Argument (revamped)

[createdtoworship]

How is it not logical? What logical contradiction does it invoke?

ok, lets step back and see what you said: you said this:

I don’t have to successfully explain it myself, I just have to produce conceivable alternatives that you then have to prove wrong. And right now that means proving evolution wrong, a task which I do not envy.

so here you say, basically that all you have to do is question my premise, you don't have to validate your positive statements at all, I however need to provide evidence for my positive statements. Its all right here in the comments. you are scared to prove anything, but require it of others. Caught red handed.

It doesn’t matter how true anything is. What matters is whether you have sufficient reason to believe something.

this makes me sad that another human being would lower himself to this level. To believe things just because you want to , and remove the fact it is true or not is very evil.

And because the scientific community is virtually unanimous about the truth of evolution, we have perfectly sufficient reason to believe evolution is true.

This statement commits the “fallacy of popularity”, or the “fallacy of celebrity”, or the “fallacy of authority.”
Truth is not determined by popularity, or celebrity or authority, but on if it is logically sound. 100 years ago the scientific consensus was that spontaneous generation was possible, now they have changed that consensus.

Hypothetically it’s possible everything we believe is wrong and this is all a fever dream on planet Neptune, but there’s no way to know that, so we’re stuck with what we have.

and you live by faith every day that you are not just a figment of the imagination of a huge brain floating in a vat someone in existence. Yes I understand faith very well, do you?

And what we have is absolutely no reason to suspect that the scientific community is wrong about evolution. No fallacy, just science.

the establishment can't promote God as creator thats one thing we know for certain. So they developed an alternative they can teach, even if it has no evidence at all. The theory of evolution. I have asked over fifteen years of debate on this forum for evidence of one genus of animal, evolving into another genus. I call it the genus barrier. For example a bird to a whale transition. One that is in between the two genus's. I have never been given an example. Well an example that stood scrutiny. 99 percent don't even try. Among the 1 percent that are intelligent to research, I have found only about three examples, and it always ends up that the animal is more of one than the other. For example a human is more human than it is similar to a monkey, therefore it's human. Since there are no transitions from any two genus's walking around or flying or swimming, we must conclude that animals don't evolve into other genra. And this would defeat darwinism as a whole. See science relies on observation to make a thesis. If there is no observation, there is no thesis, there is no science. Therefore all of evolutionary biology is wrong. A typical biologist can deal with micro evolutionary principles. They don't need an entirely theoretical field and pay them with my tax dollars and grant money, teaching misinformation.

The evidence is everywhere. Google it. I’m not here to teach you basic biology. Evolution is basic biology. Basic. Biology.

thats the sad part. It sort of invalidates hundreds of years of work in the sciences. Once the cat is let out of the bag, there will be some serious embarrassment in the sciences.

I’m not refuting Christianity. I’m refuting your argument. Christianity may very well be correct. But you’re not making good cases for it. And that’s what you don’t get.

I am not making good cases because I am not debating that topic currently. Accept in the hell section, and you have replied to that, albeit not very successfully.

 

[gaara4158]

so here you say, basically that all you have to do is question my premise, you don't have to validate your positive statements at all, I however need to provide evidence for my positive statements. Its all right here in the comments. you are scared to prove anything, but require it of others. Caught red handed.

No, that’s just how the burden of proof works. If I made a thread and said that God is logically impossible, I would have to explain which laws of logic God violates by definition. It wouldn’t be enough for me to say he’s logically impossible and insist theists prove me wrong. But that’s exactly what you’re doing with your premise against evolution.

this makes me sad that another human being would lower himself to this level. To believe things just because you want to , and remove the fact it is true or not is very evil.

Don’t get me started on how I feel about where you’re at. When did I say we only believe things we want to? No, I said that belief is warranted only when there’s evidence, reason to believe. Truth and reasonable belief aren’t necessarily connected. Do you understand that?

This statement commits the “fallacy of popularity”, or the “fallacy of celebrity”, or the “fallacy of authority.”
Truth is not determined by popularity, or celebrity or authority, but on if it is logically sound. 100 years ago the scientific consensus was that spontaneous generation was possible, now they have changed that consensus.

We’re not talking about truth, we’re talking about what’s reasonable to believe. And what’s reasonable to believe is that the scientific community is correct about matters of science. If it’s wrong, you have to take it up with them or someone interested in fielding your questions. That’s not me and this isn’t the place for it. You can’t just say it’s reasonable to assume the scientific community is incorrect about evolution because they’ve been incorrect about other things in the past. And yet your argument requires that we do that. So your argument is dead in the water.

and you live by faith every day that you are not just a figment of the imagination of a huge brain floating in a vat someone in existence. Yes I understand faith very well, do you?

I live by the reasonable and pragmatic assumption that I’m real, yes. Faith is a funny word to use for that.

the establishment can't promote God as creator thats one thing we know for certain. So they developed an alternative they can teach, even if it has no evidence at all. The theory of evolution. I have asked over fifteen years of debate on this forum for evidence of one genus of animal, evolving into another genus. I call it the genus barrier. For example a bird to a whale transition. One that is in between the two genus's. I have never been given an example. Well an example that stood scrutiny. 99 percent don't even try. Among the 1 percent that are intelligent to research, I have found only about three examples, and it always ends up that the animal is more of one than the other. For example a human is more human than it is similar to a monkey, therefore it's human. Since there are no transitions from any two genus's walking around or flying or swimming, we must conclude that animals don't evolve into other genra. And this would defeat darwinism as a whole. See science relies on observation to make a thesis. If there is no observation, there is no thesis, there is no science. Therefore all of evolutionary biology is wrong. A typical biologist can deal with micro evolutionary principles. They don't need an entirely theoretical field and pay them with my tax dollars and grant money, teaching misinformation.

This is wrong, and like I said, I don’t have the patience to disabuse you of this conspiracy theory. Run it by an actual scientist.

thats the sad part. It sort of invalidates hundreds of years of work in the sciences. Once the cat is let out of the bag, there will be some serious embarrassment in the sciences.

Scientists get excited when long-believed theories are proved wrong, not embarrassed. It opens up a whole new set of implications for them to explore and study. But when that happens with evolution, you let me know. Until then you’re living in a fantasy.

I am not making good cases because I am not debating that topic currently. Accept in the hell section, and you have replied to that, albeit not very successfully.

Let me remind you that your moral argument rests on the impossibility of evolution. Evolution is one of the best-supported theories in all of science. So your argument for God requires a rejection of science. This is more likely to push people who are unsure into atheism than Christianity since most people don’t think it’s rational to reject science.

 

[createdtoworship]

Evolution is one of the best-supported theories in all of science. So your argument for God requires a rejection of science.

so you can prove both that evolution is true, allegedly. Because you are making all sorts of positive statements on this. But I forgot, only the person making the thread has to provide evidence. You said that in this last post, that because I posted the thread I should support it, (which is true), but you don't have to support anything you say. Which is false.

This is more likely to push people who are unsure into atheism than Christianity since most people don’t think it’s rational to reject science.

I think disproving evolution twice already in this thread would support theism, you think?

 

[gaara4158]

so you can prove both that evolution is true, allegedly. Because you are making all sorts of positive statements on this. But I forgot, only the person making the thread has to provide evidence. You said that in this last post, that because I posted the thread I should support it, (which is true), but you don't have to support anything you say. Which is false.

You can keep saying that, or you can visit that page you threw at us a couple months ago talking all about where the burden of proof lies. You keep saying evolution is inconceivable. The fact that millions of scientists disagree casts serious doubt on that assertion. You can’t overrule the consensus of experts with a couple sentences. That’s just not how it works.

I think disproving evolution twice already in this thread would support theism, you think?

All you disproved was the notion that you have any idea what you’re talking about. Even if evolution were overturned, that would not have theistic implications one way or the other. You’ll never understand that, will you?

 

[createdtoworship]

You can keep saying that, or you can visit that page you threw at us a couple months ago talking all about where the burden of proof lies. You keep saying evolution is inconceivable. The fact that millions of scientists disagree casts serious doubt on that assertion. You can’t overrule the consensus of experts with a couple sentences. That’s just not how it works.

but I did over rule the consensus of scientists with a couple of sentences, I disproved the entire structure as not having observation. So how can it be science if there is no observation. So basically the scientists are not in their field of expertise, because evolution fails the scientific method due to not having observation. Besides even if it didn't prove them wrong, it would still be a fallacy of popularity, or bandwagon fallacy. Something is not true because the majority believe something. Most scientists a few thousand years ago thought the earth was flat and sitting on the back of an elephant. Science changes. So saying that science as we know it, is perfect, is a lie. Science changes all the time, to make it better. 50 years in the future they will be teaching against the myths of today's science.

All you disproved was the notion that you have any idea what you’re talking about. Even if evolution were overturned, that would not have theistic implications one way or the other. You’ll never understand that, will you?

think about it this way. If we weren't created by natural causes, then what is the only other known option? If not natural then supernatural. And I have made a case for the supernatural twice in this thread and others.

 

[TBDude65]

Morals and ethics are not universal nor immutable. The ability of social species to develop and evolve a system of morals/ethics that improves the ability of the society to survive, is entirely expected for a species influenced by evolution.

Why do you think a fixed concept of morality would prove a god? Wouldn't it (at best) indicate the existence of a human who codified their version of their "god's" concept of morality?

 

[createdtoworship]

Morals and ethics are not universal nor immutable. The ability of social species to develop and evolve a system of morals/ethics that improves the ability of the society to survive, is entirely expected for a species influenced by evolution.

Why do you think a fixed concept of morality would prove a god? Wouldn't it (at best) indicate the existence of a human who codified their version of their "god's" concept of morality?

so can you provide examples of self sacrificial love in animals? Not in the family, but in the pack in general? Mothers will be self sacrificial, but not toward animals that are not their children, and not toward their enemies. Christianity is a unique morality extending love and forgiveness even to those who hate you and try to kill you. You won't see this in the animal world, because love, true love is divine, not earthly.

 

[gaara4158]

but I did over rule the consensus of scientists with a couple of sentences, I disproved the entire structure as not having observation. So how can it be science if there is no observation. So basically the scientists are not in their field of expertise, because evolution fails the scientific method due to not having observation.

Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong? Look at it this way. Either you, a layman, have caught a glaring error in a theory that has served as the backbone of our understanding of biology for over a century which 99.99% of experts in biology somehow missed, or your understanding of evolution and its supporting evidence is somehow flawed. Which is more likely? Humble yourself for a moment and try to answer this objectively. Is it possible you know less than the experts?

Besides even if it didn't prove them wrong, it would still be a fallacy of popularity, or bandwagon fallacy. Something is not true because the majority believe something. Most scientists a few thousand years ago thought the earth was flat and sitting on the back of an elephant. Science changes. So saying that science as we know it, is perfect, is a lie. Science changes all the time, to make it better. 50 years in the future they will be teaching against the myths of today's science.

This is an incorrect application of that fallacy. Remember, we're not arguing about who dictates what's "true." There's an endless plethora of unknown realities that might be "true" regardless of who believes them or not. We're arguing about whom it's more rational to believe about matters of science: scientists, or laymen. And the answer is scientists. If you need help understanding why that is, ask yourself why you go to a doctor when you're sick and not a circus clown.

think about it this way. If we weren't created by natural causes, then what is the only other known option? If not natural then supernatural. And I have made a case for the supernatural twice in this thread and others.

That's a huge IF. Neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated that we weren't created by natural causes. Further, there are no other "known" options apart from natural causes. There are hypotheses involving aliens, simulations, and multiverses, but none of these things are actually "known." And further still, supernatural isn't a scientific term, so it doesn't belong anywhere in scientific hypotheses. Your efforts to explain the supernatural consist of using quantum theory to explain seemingly impossible events within a naturalistic framework and, bizarrely, appealing to the success of supernatural horror movies as evidence that ghosts and demons must exist. Suffice it to say your ideas on the supernatural are incomplete.

And finally, the move you just tried to make was wrong in so many ways. Your logic went as follows:
1. We don't know the cause of the existence of moral imperatives in humans.
2. Because we don't know the cause, there must not be any natural cause for moral imperatives in humans.
3. Because there are no natural causes for moral imperatives in humans, the causes must be supernatural.
4. Therefore, morality proves the existence of the supernatural which implies God.

Premise 1 is incorrect. We have evolutionary and cultural explanations for the existence of moral imperatives in humans.
Premise 2 does not follow from premise 1. Just because we don't know a natural cause doesn't mean there isn't one.
Premise 3 only follows if natural vs. supernatural is an exhaustive dichotomy, which you'd have to do some more defining of your terms to make it work for you. For example, what about the unnatural?
Obviously you can't get to your conclusion if all 3 of your premises are flawed, so you've got some work to do. Even then, you can't just jump from supernatural to God. You have to show the logical steps that get you there too.

 

[createdtoworship]

And finally, the move you just tried to make was wrong in so many ways. Your logic went as follows:
1. We don't know the cause of the existence of moral imperatives in humans.
2. Because we don't know the cause, there must not be any natural cause for moral imperatives in humans.
3. Because there are no natural causes for moral imperatives in humans, the causes must be supernatural.
4. Therefore, morality proves the existence of the supernatural which implies God.

Premise 1 is incorrect. We have evolutionary and cultural explanations for the existence of moral imperatives in humans.
Premise 2 does not follow from premise 1. Just because we don't know a natural cause doesn't mean there isn't one.
Premise 3 only follows if natural vs. supernatural is an exhaustive dichotomy, which you'd have to do some more defining of your terms to make it work for you. For example, what about the unnatural?
Obviously you can't get to your conclusion if all 3 of your premises are flawed, so you've got some work to do. Even then, you can't just jump from supernatural to God. You have to show the logical steps that get you there too.

I could be wrong with evolution, but seeing there is no evidence for it, I am betting on where the evidence points, to that of intelligent design.

for lack of time I will adress only part of your post. I like the above premises, I think they are very valid.

except premise 2 is a little off. It's not that because we don't know, that there are no natural causes, it's that there is no evidence of natural causes.

And lastly I proved that sacrificial love is a christian theology.

so therefore nature does not have a source for sacrificial love, but God does have a source for it.

end of story.

 

[gaara4158]

I could be wrong with evolution, but seeing there is no evidence for it, I am betting on where the evidence points, to that of intelligent design.

No, this is the part you don't seem to understand. You believe there is no evidence for evolution. This is in direct opposition to actual scientists who are actual authorities on matters of biology. They recognize that there is evidence for evolution. This is what I'm asking you to consider you might be wrong about. But instead you just go straight to "no, I'm right." Ok, well, I'm betting on scientists over you.

Secondly, you talk of evidence for ID, but all you ever point to when asked is things you don't believe evolution can explain, but then admit that you only believe that because you don't believe in evolution in the first place. So your evidence for ID is not evidence at all, but rather a purported lack of evidence for evolution, which is in fact an argument from ignorance. If you disprove evolution, we go from "evolution happened" to "we don't know what happened," not "ID happened."

for lack of time I will adress only part of your post. I like the above premises, I think they are very valid.

except premise 2 is a little off. It's not that because we don't know, that there are no natural causes, it's that there is no evidence of natural causes.

I already went through and pointed out what was wrong with each premise, so you can't just come back with "they're very valid."

And lastly I proved that sacrificial love is a christian theology.

so therefore nature does not have a source for sacrificial love, but God does have a source for it.

end of story.

Christianity doesn't own altruism, and you just admitted that absence of evidence for a natural source of something doesn't mean there isn't one. So there's really no story to be told here.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, this is the part you don't seem to understand. You believe there is no evidence for evolution. This is in direct opposition to actual scientists who are actual authorities on matters of biology. They recognize that there is evidence for evolution. This is what I'm asking you to consider you might be wrong about. But instead you just go straight to "no, I'm right." Ok, well, I'm betting on scientists over you.

again this argument is an appeal to the populus, or bandwagon fallacy. So I won't adress it. But I will tell you I have debated several biologists in the evolution threads, I even emailed one I found online, and we talked for weeks. Still no evidence. You would think after ten years of debate in this issue someone, somewhere would have evidence of macro evolution. It should not be that hard to find.

Secondly, you talk of evidence for ID, but all you ever point to when asked is things you don't believe evolution can explain, but then admit that you only believe that because you don't believe in evolution in the first place.

no. The thing is something created the universe. You already said that the only possibility you know of, is a multiverse theory. As you reject that God could possibly do it. Yet I asked you why would a multiverse expend energy to created a completely separate universe, and where would a multiverse get such creative ability. This is not a problem with theism. Logically theism has answers to these questions.

So your evidence for ID is not evidence at all, but rather a purported lack of evidence for evolution, which is in fact an argument from ignorance. If you disprove evolution, we go from "evolution happened" to "we don't know what happened," not "ID happened."

no I have stated several times that whatever created the universe must have all the positive character traits of it's creation. So if there is intelligence, the creator must be an intelligent being. If we are loving and benevolent and just, there must be a loving, benevolent and just God. Instinct can evolve some of those character traits, but I would doubt it. So theism really has the only possibility. You can say there is an intelligent and loving multiverse out there, but I would argue (what makes that multiverse at that point different than God?) So you must deny that a creator have such aspects, unsuccessfully, but you can't logically do that. So you have been successfully refuted at this point.

I already went through and pointed out what was wrong with each premise, so you can't just come back with "they're very valid."

sorry i didn't get to that part I was out of time, you can repost it if you want.

Christianity doesn't own altruism, and you just admitted that absence of evidence for a natural source of something doesn't mean there isn't one. So there's really no story to be told here

I think this has already been addressed.

 

[gaara4158]

again this argument is an appeal to the populus, or bandwagon fallacy. So I won't adress it. But I will tell you I have debated several biologists in the evolution threads, I even emailed one I found online, and we talked for weeks. Still no evidence. You would think after ten years of debate in this issue someone, somewhere would have evidence of macro evolution. It should not be that hard to find.


no. The thing is something created the universe. You already said that the only possibility you know of, is a multiverse theory. As you reject that God could possibly do it. Yet I asked you why would a multiverse expend energy to created a completely separate universe, and where would a multiverse get such creative ability. This is not a problem with theism. Logically theism has answers to these questions.

no I have stated several times that whatever created the universe must have all the positive character traits of it's creation. So if there is intelligence, the creator must be an intelligent being. If we are loving and benevolent and just, there must be a loving, benevolent and just God. Instinct can evolve some of those character traits, but I would doubt it. So theism really has the only possibility. You can say there is an intelligent and loving multiverse out there, but I would argue (what makes that multiverse at that point different than God?) So you must deny that a creator have such aspects, unsuccessfully, but you can't logically do that. So you have been successfully refuted at this point.




sorry i didn't get to that part I was out of time, you can repost it if you want.


I think this has already been addressed.

Alright well I’ve led you to water. It’s your choice to drink or not. There's nothing in your reply that I haven't thoroughly dealt with already. Cheers.

 

[createdtoworship]

Alright well I’ve led you to water. It’s your choice to drink or not. There's nothing in your reply that I haven't thoroughly dealt with already. Cheers.

let me put it this way. If animals are evolving into other animals, there would be thousands of half ape half humans out there running around. But we see either apes or humans, no middle grounds. So I can lead you to water, but it's your choice to see if evolution is obviously false or not.

 

[gaara4158]

let me put it this way. If animals are evolving into other animals, there would be thousands of half ape half humans out there running around. But we see either apes or humans, no middle grounds. So I can lead you to water, but it's your choice to see if evolution is obviously false or not.

I don't debate evolution. It's settled science. Rhetoric isn't going to overturn that.
human evolution | Stages & Timeline
Evidence for evolution
Human Evolution Evidence
Early Theories of Evolution: Evidence of Evolution
What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions
Three Pieces of Evidence That Prove Evolution is a Fact
Take it up with these guys, not me.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't debate evolution. It's settled science. Rhetoric isn't going to overturn that.
human evolution | Stages & Timeline
Evidence for evolution
Human Evolution Evidence
Early Theories of Evolution: Evidence of Evolution
What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions
Three Pieces of Evidence That Prove Evolution is a Fact
Take it up with these guys, not me.

again the fact that humans evolved from apes should have hundreds if not thousands of half monkey men walking around, awaiting final evolution. What we have are complete unchanging humans and monkeys. So again, you can quote all you want. But LUCY is an ape, and neanderthal is a human. None of the other missing links work either, they are either human like or ape like. But finding one or two doesn't even work. If we all evolved from lesser species, there should be all sorts of (half) human, (half other) animal transitions walking around, getting ready to fail or die off. But all we have is humans fully formed. Again micro evolution, getting over a cold is one thing, that is proven science, but monkeys evolving into humans simply is unobserved and unrepeatable in a scientific setting. Most of those articles deal with micro evolution, which is not the evolution I speak of. Real evolution is macro evolution.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

let me put it this way. If animals are evolving into other animals, there would be thousands of half ape half humans out there running around. But we see either apes or humans, no middle grounds. So I can lead you to water, but it's your choice to see if evolution is obviously false or not.

A fist year biology class explains why what you’re saying isn’t factual.

But keep posting this, it’s quite helpful.

 

[createdtoworship]

A fist year biology class explains why what you’re saying isn’t factual.

But keep posting this, it’s quite helpful.

No sir, first year anthropology. Get it right. But when I took anthropology they had all these skulls of humans and apes. And they had this discolored part to them. I think it was grey, some had a little grey others had 90% grey. I asked what the grey was, he said it was missing bone. So they were basically guessing what the skull looked like. Especially in the case where is was 90% covered in grey. Thats when i dropped the class, believing it as fraudulent. Thats just my experience. But again if it's not anthropology you were thinking of and you were thinking of biology, by all means correct me.

 

[createdtoworship]

Forgiveness is actually our greatest need. The atheist philosopher, Marghanita Laski, said, ‘What I envy most about you Christians is your forgiveness. I have no one to forgive me.’ We all want to know that we are pardoned for all that we have done wrong. Only Christ offers this forgiveness. This type of morality you don't see in the animal kingdom. It is from above.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No sir, first year anthropology. Get it right. But when I took anthropology they had all these skulls of humans and apes. And they had this discolored part to them. I think it was grey, some had a little grey others had 90% grey. I asked what the grey was, he said it was missing bone. So they were basically guessing what the skull looked like. Especially in the case where is was 90% covered in grey. Thats when i dropped the class, believing it as fraudulent. Thats just my experience. But again if it's not anthropology you were thinking of and you were thinking of biology, by all means correct me.

I learned about evolution (remember you specifically mentioned the word “evolution”), in Biology class.

So no, I didn’t mean Anthropology.

And my point still stands...

 

[gaara4158]

again the fact that humans evolved from apes should have hundreds if not thousands of half monkey men walking around, awaiting final evolution. What we have are complete unchanging humans and monkeys. So again, you can quote all you want. But LUCY is an ape, and neanderthal is a human. None of the other missing links work either, they are either human like or ape like. But finding one or two doesn't even work. If we all evolved from lesser species, there should be all sorts of (half) human, (half other) animal transitions walking around, getting ready to fail or die off. But all we have is humans fully formed. Again micro evolution, getting over a cold is one thing, that is proven science, but monkeys evolving into humans simply is unobserved and unrepeatable in a scientific setting. Most of those articles deal with micro evolution, which is not the evolution I speak of. Real evolution is macro evolution.

Take it up with the scientists.