Any one care to take a swing at this?

[BlackSabb]

I can't.


I can say that. Material reality in no way presupposes the existence of a creator. Anyone who says it does is arguing from false premises.

Well, like I say, I'm just quoting what the Bible is saying. That our consciences are God's imprinting of his universal basic moral laws on our hearts (and the Bible also says that our consciences can be corrupted and dulled by acting against it).

And that no person has excuse for denying a creator by the evidence of creation.

Make of it what you will. But I would like someone to tell me what gives humans a conscience if it's not from God?

 

[Andreusz]

^ See my post #40 above.

 

[Andreusz]

Double post. Sorry.

 

[BlackSabb]

I don't get it.

 

[BlackSabb]

I don't get it.

 

[b&wpac4]

Make of it what you will. But I would like someone to tell me what gives humans a conscience if it's not from God?

Ok, I bet you can make this argument yourself. Assume God does not exist (we're just assuming here) and you part of a society at the dawn of civilization. What do you suppose would be required for that civilization to run effectively? Again, we are running with the theory that God does NOT exist.

 

[BlackSabb]

Ok, I bet you can make this argument yourself. Assume God does not exist (we're just assuming here) and you part of a society at the dawn of civilization. What do you suppose would be required for that civilization to run effectively? Again, we are running with the theory that God does NOT exist.

I know what you're getting at, I've heard it before. You're saying that if there was not some sort of universal laws of basic morality (as decided by society, not God as you say) then humans would have wiped themselves out.

It's a good argument, I'll give you that. But I see one HUGE problem with that. I'm a middle aged guy, and in my experience of humanity, I can honestly say that most humans are looking out for number one-each to their own. Your premise would only work if you can say that mankind is basically good and generally is concerned with one another, the society around them etc.

But this is simply not true. Mankind is basically rotten to the core, and I have the whole of human history and all its horrors, atrocities and injustices to prove my point as opposed to yours. Mankind therefore is incapable on his own to devise a basic set of morality for his preservation. I see that a God given conscience is absolutely indispensable just for mankind to survive.

 

[b&wpac4]

I know what you're getting at, I've heard it before. You're saying that if there was not some sort of universal laws of basic morality (as decided by society, not God as you say) then humans would have wiped themselves out.

It's a good argument, I'll give you that. But I see one HUGE problem with that. I'm a middle aged guy, and in my experience of humanity, I can honestly say that most humans are looking out for number one-each to their own. Your premise would only work if you can say that mankind is basically good and generally is concerned with one another, the society around them etc.

But this is simply not true. Mankind is basically rotten to the core, and I have the whole of human history and all its horrors, atrocities and injustices to prove my point as opposed to yours. Mankind therefore is incapable on his own to devise a basic set of morality for his preservation. I see that a God given conscience is absolutely indispensable just for mankind to survive.

It isn't a huge problem because most of the atrocities and horrors you mention are not carried out on the person's own group. We form communities as humans. We like being part of a bigger group. Once we are part of the group, we rarely turn against it.

We are quite willing to go after another group. We may even be willing to go after individuals within the group for personal gain, but we try our best not to put ourselves outside the group in that quest.

 

[BlackSabb]

It isn't a huge problem because most of the atrocities and horrors you mention are not carried out on the person's own group. We form communities as humans. We like being part of a bigger group. Once we are part of the group, we rarely turn against it.

We are quite willing to go after another group. We may even be willing to go after individuals within the group for personal gain, but we try our best not to put ourselves outside the group in that quest.

That maybe so, but in the end, mankind ultimately belongs to only one group-mankind. Without basic God given morality, every group would every turn on every other group and would have quickly wiped itself out.

 

[b&wpac4]

That maybe so, but in the end, mankind ultimately belongs to only one group-mankind. Without basic God given morality, every group would every turn on every other group and would have quickly wiped itself out.

Would it have? I think we could argue that Alexander did a pretty good job of removing a lot of his competing groups. Groups form, become dominant, and then fall apart, usually splintering into groups that then fight each other.

Your suggestion that we would wipe each other out is not true. If two groups are big enough, they can withstand attacks.

How do you suppose ape communities continue to exist? Or dog packs? Or lion prides? Do they also have the conscience of God written upon their hearts?

 

[sidhe]

BlackSabb -

Your signature is breaking the frames. Please find a smaller picture.

Secondly: The assumption that Christian morality is the only way a society can function is fail. Most modern pagan groups function - internally at least - by a quite different moral standard and tend to only suffer stress when someone tries to introduce a more "culturally standard" morality.

 

[BlackSabb]

How do you suppose ape communities continue to exist? Or dog packs? Or lion prides? Do they also have the conscience of God written upon their hearts?

That's a good point and exactly what I'm talking about. I don't believe animals have any free will. They are creation that is pre programmed with the most fundamental laws of survival written in them. An animal has no concept of right or wrong. Animals are governed solely by survival. And in fact, look at all the species of creation that have been made extinct.

 

[b&wpac4]

That's a good point and exactly what I'm talking about. I don't believe animals have any free will. They are creation that is pre programmed with the most fundamental laws of survival written in them. An animal has no concept of right or wrong. Animals are governed solely by survival. And in fact, look at all the species of creation that have been made extinct.

I still don't see where it means we are REQUIRED to have a moral code written to our hearts. We want our family to prosper. The best way for that to occur is within a big group, since alone we are pretty weak as it does not take much to kill a human.

We form those groups so we can survive, and understand that killing members of our group weakens the group. That being said, a lot of earlier civilizations would remove members that were thought of as weak. Deformed babies were discarded, for example. That shows a different morality than we have currently, where we don't think that we should discard members of our society that are weak.

 

[BlackSabb]

We form those groups so we can survive, and understand that killing members of our group weakens the group.

Do you place so much faith in the goodness of man that the average man/woman doesn't kill others because they are concerned for their particular group or society as a whole?

There is no way I'd ever entertain that notion. My experience of human beings is that the average one is far from being that noble. There is absolutely no way that the average person has the interests of their group or society on their mind. My own interactions with people have taught me that.

Mankind is incapable of that type of self preservation. The only thing that stops the average person (without knowledge of God or the Bible) from killing, stealing, raping etc is their God given conscience.

And how do you explain charitable acts of mankind that are NOT good for the interests of the giver? If mankind is driven by self preservation, how do you explain someone that sacrifices himself for the sake of someone else? It makes no sense in the absence of God, but is explained by the light of God in every person.

 

[b&wpac4]

Do you place so much faith in the goodness of man that the average man/woman doesn't kill others because they are concerned for their particular group or society as a whole?

There is no way I'd ever entertain that notion. My experience of human beings is that the average one is far from being that noble. There is absolutely no way that the average person has the interests of their group or society on their mind. My own interactions with people have taught me that.

Mankind is incapable of that type of self preservation. The only thing that stops the average person (without knowledge of God or the Bible) from killing, stealing, raping etc is their God given conscience.

And how do you explain charitable acts of mankind that are NOT good for the interests of the giver? If mankind is driven by self preservation, how do you explain someone that sacrifices himself for the sake of someone else? It makes no sense in the absence of God, but is explained by the light of God in every person.

If your average interactions show that humans are not that noble, how can you come to the conclusion that God wrote morals on their heart?

Yes, I don't believe the average man/woman/child would be out raping, murdering, and stealing.

 

[Andreusz]

I don't get it.

I meant, see my post #40 above.

 

[BlackSabb]

If your average interactions show that humans are not that noble, how can you come to the conclusion that God wrote morals on their heart?

I can resolve that very easily. I see that mankind is basically selfish, unkind and unloving. But also that most people aren't killing, stealing and raping. Even an unloving and cruel money grubbing tyrannical miser is capable of obeying the most fundamental moral laws. In fact, your very question demonstrates to me evidence of God's moral laws written in all of us by way of our conscience.

For if mankind is basically evil, what stops most people from committing the most grievious of crimes? The inbuilt directions we all have from God.

 

[b&wpac4]

For if mankind is basically evil, what stops most people from committing the most grievious of crimes? The inbuilt directions we all have from God.

I don't believe we are evil though.

 

[BlackSabb]

I don't believe we are evil though.

You seriously can't believe that mankind is basically good. "Evil" doesn't just mean not killing and raping. It can also mean indifference, lovelessness, selfishness, greed, corruption, laziness, jealousy, apathy, prejudice, hypocrisy, judgmentalism, pride, vanity, deception etc.

Based on all those criteria, would you still say that mankind is basically not evil?

 

[Fin12]

Black Sabbath

Maybe you should note down that in evloutionary terms, good deeds are about replication, we do good deeds, becuase

A: It benefits the group.
B: Theirs a chance they will do the same thing back.

Now sometimes good deeds seem illogical, this is becuase the emotional brain, (the one that is primarily responsible for altruism), where as the neo-cortex (the brain that helps us draw up long term plans, learn etc/ side note, the major difference between us and other animals is our neo-cortex we have larger one than any other animal) is the "logical" brain.

Evoloution is crude, slow and bloody and never fully stops, the fact that we do alturistic things that do not help our conciounce is a flaw that has yet to be ironed out.

Note: In my eye's however that makes charitable deeds no less noble I personally try and make sure I give £1 to charity a day. Hurray me!!

Mankind can be evil, but it can also be wondrful.

Stop throwing things into arbitrary categories of good and evil man... I know it's simpler to just cut people down the middle. But it doesn't make sense in this complex world.