From the brain when it became complex enough to generate it.
How did the brain evolve and how did intelligence arise from mindless natural processes? If physical traits, those that would aid an organism to survive, how did a brain as an unplanned and unguided outcome develop as the "thinking" and processing organ it is?
I don't see that it needs to be observed, but I'd agree - you can't observe something that does not exist.
For logic to be a product of man, this type of recognition would not be "observed" which is what man made logic would require.
Not yet. *Return Wink!* Seriously though, morality from evolution doesn't actually require a purely naturalistic origin for all things, or even for life. Just no supernatural insertion of pre-made morality.
So if not a naturalistic origin what would be the origins? If not from evolution then from what would it arise and if evolution how does it arise when intelligence and logic must be present first.
That's not my position though - I don't hold that all phenomenon will be explained as natural eventually. I accept that there might be supernatural explanations or that there might never be any explanations for certain things. I am more inclined to think that an unexplained phenomenon has a natural explanation, but only because those are the only kind I've ever seen.
Exactly, because your own worldview rests in the naturalistic realm. That is normal and expected when one doesn't accept that God exists. Just as it is normal and expected when one knows God exists that there worldview is in the supernatural realm. The difference is which is most consistent with the reality of the world. I find my worldview explains the world consistently and matches what we find in reality. That is the essence of the issues at hand.
It's not impossible for an all-powerful God who is unrestricted by physical laws. The universe we see so far appears to be exactly as it would need to in the absence of such a being.
Actually it isn't. There are many, many elements in our universe that are not satisfactorily explained by ToE or explained by science. The evolution of intelligence...of the brain for that matter. Why do we accept that a mindless unguided process provided the means for our intelligence? Why do we accept that the fine tuning needed to allow life on our planet just happens to be that way? Why the earth has the perfect amount of water to provide the needs of the planet. The list goes on and on. You claim that it is exactly as it would need to be in the absence of such a being when in fact, I claim it couldn't be without Him.
'It got that way by accident' is an explanation, actually. Not say it's quite as simple as that - a rock can roll down a hill randomly, but there are natural forces acting upon it to ensure that it won't randomly roll up, or turn into a fruit salad.
The rock is one element. The fine tuning is a wide swath of elements that are so precise that accidental has been ruled out by scientists themselves. That is why they are trying to find a unified theory to explain it all. One element just one like your example of the fine tuning is that if the weight of one grain of sand either heavier or lighter would have made our universe impossible to exist. The weight of one grain of sand! That is precise.
Sure - I could 'feel' that it isn't the case, that wouldn't make the feeling correct.
Right.
Does 2 + 2 really equal 4? If someone says it really equals 5, do we have to accept that, or can we tell them they're wrong?
That is a mathematical reality, an objective reality. You are claiming that morality is not.
Not for me - I see man as a creature that has evolved.
What we see is that evolved morality is not objective in your view, yet you see that there is an objective right and wrong.
Any reason a person couldn't do the same?
Can a person know the heart and mind of another? By heart I mean intent. Do we know the objective truth of evil and good? If we have evolved morality we can't.
No. I could be wrong - I haven't seen any reason to think I am though.
Have you had any reason to question whether or not you are wrong?
I really think I've covered a plausible path that evolved morality could have taken, no supernatural interference required.
You would still need to provide a way morality could arise from evolution prior to intelligence and logic, how that arose by a mindless unguided process and why one thing would be more moral than another.
Trust me, it's not. I am very concerned about believing things that are not true though, so I'm cautious about accepting superstition or personal testimony that I cannot verify or experience for myself. An all-knowing deity would certainly know how to convince me, however.
Which if He did, He would not be allowing you the choice. He won't do that without you asking for it. If you really wanted to know, and you know how sincerely you could ask, He then would be allowed to show you. But if you are like most naturalists, you don't want to know because then you would be like me wouldn't you. Going against the grain, being ridiculed for ignorance and being mocked. So it is easier to just claim that if evidence for His existence just happens to fall in your lap you would certainly accept it, while feeling secure that won't happen because you wouldn't want it to.
Well then, it would seem the ball's in His court.[/quote]
