The Moral Argument (revamped)

[createdtoworship]

Here is a video of forgiving, being nice etc to people. Herd instinct could not have evolved this type of love for others because true love is caring about others regardless of what you get in return. Herd instinct can ply evolve morals that deal with the survival of the pack. True love will love, regardless of herd survival. Even if a herd dies, true love will operate. Therefore herd instinct cannot evolve true love.

 

[gaara4158]

Here is a video of forgiving, being nice etc to people. Herd instinct could not have evolved this type of love for others because true love is caring about others regardless of what you get in return. Herd instinct can ply evolve morals that deal with the survival of the pack. True love will love, regardless of herd survival. Even if a herd dies, true love will operate. Therefore herd instinct cannot evolve true love.

I’m interested in hearing more about what you think “herd instinct” is and what exactly constitutes “true love.” Are you aware of concepts like inclusive fitness and reciprocity, both of which are observed in the animal kingdom, which can lead to altruistic behavior in certain situations?

 

[createdtoworship]

I’m interested in hearing more about what you think “herd instinct” is and what exactly constitutes “true love.” Are you aware of concepts like inclusive fitness and reciprocity, both of which are observed in the animal kingdom, which can lead to altruistic behavior in certain situations?

easy, herd instinct is limited to if the pack benefits or not. Why would an animal evolve love, for example in loving our enemies? I have never seen an giraffe, love a lion for example. To voluntarily give itself up for breakfast. It just does not happen. Yet in christianity for example Jesus commands to love our enemies. You mentioned awhile back the "atheists wager." So for example does, atheism promote love of enemies? It's not a normal thing to ask people to do. Loving the unlovable. Putting yourself last in line, not cutting. Putting yourself voluntarily as someone's servant. Yet the Bible talks about this all the time. This proves that the morality found in the Bible is unique to only to theism.

 

[gaara4158]

easy, herd instinct is limited to if the pack benefits or not. Why would an animal evolve love, for example in loving our enemies? I have never seen an giraffe, love a lion for example. To voluntarily give itself up for breakfast. It just does not happen. Yet in christianity for example Jesus commands to love our enemies. You mentioned awhile back the "atheists wager." So for example does, atheism promote love of enemies? It's not a normal thing to ask people to do. Loving the unlovable. Putting yourself last in line, not cutting. Putting yourself voluntarily as someone's servant. Yet the Bible talks about this all the time. This proves that the morality found in the Bible is unique to only to theism.

I don’t think you understood my questions. Can you define “herd instinct?” Not what it doesn’t do, but what it actually is, how it comes about, etc.
Given the rest of your reply, I’m guessing you’ve never heard of inclusive fitness and reciprocity.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don’t think you understood my questions. Can you define “herd instinct?” Not what it doesn’t do, but what it actually is, how it comes about, etc.
Given the rest of your reply, I’m guessing you’ve never heard of inclusive fitness and reciprocity.

I doubt that those made up terms (because evolutionary biology is not science) will reveal a common example of sacrificial love in nature. Not a parental love, but a pack love. A love of the pack before itself. One example is when a pack finds a kill, they bring the food back to the pack before eating it themselves. Normally a wolf for example if hungry will eat first, then when it is full, will bring food back to the pack, it's a survival instinct. So the survival instinct overrules the herd instinct, and thus negates love. I take the herd instinct from CS lewis's work. I will quote it later if you want, when I get home.

 

[gaara4158]

I doubt that those made up terms (because evolutionary biology is not science) will reveal a common example of sacrificial love in nature. Not a parental love, but a pack love. A love of the pack before itself. One example is when a pack finds a kill, they bring the food back to the pack before eating it themselves. Normally a wolf for example if hungry will eat first, then when it is full, will bring food back to the pack, it's a survival instinct. So the survival instinct overrules the herd instinct, and thus negates love. I take the herd instinct from CS lewis's work. I will quote it later if you want, when I get home.

Ah, so you’re banning evolutionary explanations on the basis of your belief that evolution is not scientific. It’s clear there is nothing anyone can say to you that will change your mind. I don’t debate evolution with people who don’t believe in it.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ah, so you’re banning evolutionary explanations on the basis of your belief that evolution is not scientific. It’s clear there is nothing anyone can say to you that will change your mind. I don’t debate evolution with people who don’t believe in it.

well yes I would reject evolutionary biology in general, as they take as a general principle that there are evolution between types of organisms (for example between two genra of animal, wolf to whale, monkey to man, bird to dinasaur). I believe there are evolution between species (ring species), but not between two different types of animal. For it to be science, it needs to be observed and replicated as per the scientific method. And currently there are no transitional species that have evolved between two different genra. The missing links are still missing.

 

[gaara4158]

well yes I would reject evolutionary biology in general, as they take as a general principle that there are evolution between types of organisms (for example between two genra of animal, wolf to whale, monkey to man, bird to dinasaur). I believe there are evolution between species (ring species), but not between two different types of animal. For it to be science, it needs to be observed and replicated as per the scientific method. And currently there are no transitional species that have evolved between two different genra. The missing links are still missing.

Your conception of evolution is highly problematic, but I’m not here to teach science. That’s something they can help you with at the creation & evolution sub-forum.

As a side note, if your moral argument rests on evolution being false, how on Earth do you expect anyone who accepts evolution to be persuaded by it? Presumably anyone who rejects evolution already believes in creationism/ID based on their religion, and they’re not the ones you’re trying to convince. Your argument may have the unintended effect of conceding the point that if evolution *is* true, evolutionary explanations of morality are perfectly valid.

 

[createdtoworship]

Your conception of evolution is highly problematic, but I’m not here to teach science. That’s something they can help you with at the creation & evolution sub-forum.

As a side note, if your moral argument rests on evolution being false, how on Earth do you expect anyone who accepts evolution to be persuaded by it? Presumably anyone who rejects evolution already believes in creationism/ID based on their religion, and they’re not the ones you’re trying to convince. Your argument may have the unintended effect of conceding the point that if evolution *is* true, evolutionary explanations of morality are perfectly valid.

I guess I don't see that as a problem, but what I do see as a problem is that your argument against the moral case for God relies on evolution (that has no evidence). In fact there is not a single case of evidence for macroevolution. Micro evolution is evolution between species and within a species, like overcoming a cold for example, we are still humans even though we have grown resistant to a virus, for example. Macro evolution is evolution between higher genus and family subgroups, is not seen in any instance. So why is it universally taught that birds became dinosaurs, when we don't see any bird dinosaurs, that are classified as between the two genra? This is not science. It's science fiction. So yeah, what worries me is that your rebuttal relies on something that is not science (evolution).

 

[gaara4158]

I guess I don't see that as a problem, but what I do see as a problem is that your argument against the moral case for God relies on evolution (that has no evidence). In fact there is not a single case of evidence for macroevolution. Micro evolution is evolution between species and within a species, like overcoming a cold for example, we are still humans even though we have grown resistant to a virus, for example. Macro evolution is evolution between higher genus and family subgroups, is not seen in any instance. So why is it universally taught that birds became dinosaurs, when we don't see any bird dinosaurs, that are classified as between the two genra? This is not science. It's science fiction. So yeah, what worries me is that your rebuttal relies on something that is not science (evolution).

I don’t have to advance a naturalistic explanation for the existence of moral imperatives in humans. Your moral argument requires you to establish the incompatibility of a godless universe and moral imperatives. I just have to poke holes in that.

But, hypothetically, if you granted evolution you would have to grant the rest of my argument, right?

 

[createdtoworship]

I don’t have to advance a naturalistic explanation for the existence of moral imperatives in humans.

right now you have no reason why morality exists. I can say that God created me, but if there is no evidence of it, you should not believe it. Likewise I require evidence when you claim that morality arose by natural phenomenon.

So far I have given you Your moral argument requires you to establish the incompatibility of a godless universe and moral imperatives. I just have to poke holes in that.

How is having no answer for your premise, poking holes in my premise?

But, hypothetically, if you granted evolution you would have to grant the rest of my argument, right?

I don't even know if that would be the case, even if I was a theistic evolutionist, I still don't think that would convince me that morality arose merely by natural means.

 

[gaara4158]

right now you have no reason why morality exists. I can say that God created me, but if there is no evidence of it, you should not believe it. Likewise I require evidence when you claim that morality arose by natural phenomenon. How is having no answer for your premise, poking holes in my premise?

Do you remember the burden of proof? You quoted it at us a while back. You’re making the positive claim that morality can’t be explained without God. 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.

I don't even know if that would be the case, even if I was a theistic evolutionist, I still don't think that would convince me that morality arose merely by natural means.

You don’t know. That’s good enough. So you can’t actually make your argument without disproving evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you remember the burden of proof? You quoted it at us a while back. You’re making the positive claim that morality can’t be explained without God. 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.

but you said they are conceivable, and they are not conceivable at all, nor rational. You have no evidence at all, how is that conceivable?

You don’t know. That’s good enough. So you can’t actually make your argument without disproving evolution.

so evolution doesn't need proof but my premises do. This is a perfect example of skepticism in general. I see how you operate. Only those of differing opinions than your own need to provide evidence, and you yourself can operate on a faith only basis all of your life, because it's atheism. and that is acceptable with atheism.

 

[gaara4158]

but you said they are conceivable, and they are not conceivable at all, nor rational. You have no evidence at all, how is that conceivable?



so evolution doesn't need proof but my premises do. This is a perfect example of skepticism in general. I see how you operate. Only those of differing opinions than your own need to provide evidence, and you yourself can operate on a faith only basis all of your life, because it's atheism. and that is acceptable with atheism.

Conceivable just means you can think of it. I can think of ways in which moral imperatives evolve naturally in humans. Therefore it is conceivable. If you think it’s irrational, how?

If we were in a debate trying to sway people from a neutral position to either evolution or creationism/ID, you’d have a point. But we’re not. You brought up an argument that depends on evolution being false, so you have the unenviable task of demonstrating the truth of that premise. It will not be granted freely.

 

[createdtoworship]

Conceivable just means you can think of it. I can think of ways in which moral imperatives evolve naturally in humans. Therefore it is conceivable. If you think it’s irrational, how?

conceivable has an aspect of logicality to it. Is it conceivable that a purple elephant created the universe? No. It is possible, yes. but not conceivable.

If we were in a debate trying to sway people from a neutral position to either evolution or creationism/ID, you’d have a point. But we’re not. You brought up an argument that depends on evolution being false, so you have the unenviable task of demonstrating the truth of that premise. It will not be granted freely.

I proved the entire premise of macro evolution false in a few sentences. Now the burden lies on yourself to either refute that refutation, or change the topic. In which you will change the topic because you don't like debating evolution, yet you use evolutionary concepts in your refutations, and expect people to honor the fact that you don't like debating it.

 

[gaara4158]

conceivable has an aspect of logicality to it. Is it conceivable that a purple elephant created the universe? No. It is possible, yes. but not conceivable.

I’m really confused as to how you’re using these words. So what’s your objection? You don’t like it?

I proved the entire premise of macro evolution false in a few sentences. Now the burden lies on yourself to either refute that refutation, or change the topic. In which you will change the topic because you don't like debating evolution, yet you use evolutionary concepts in your refutations, and expect people to honor the fact that you don't like debating it.

You didn’t disprove evolution. If you had proof that evolution was false, you’d be telling it to the relevant scientific authorities, not internet atheists. But yes, I consider this topic exhausted if your argument depends on evolution being false. Go debate evolution in the other sub-forum where people have the patience for this sort of thing. You can make this form of the moral argument here when the scientific consensus is that evolution is false.

 

[createdtoworship]

I’m really confused as to how you’re using these words. So what’s your objection? You don’t like it?

conceivable to me means logically capable of being imagined. It is capable of being imagined but not logically so.

You didn’t disprove evolution. If you had proof that evolution was false, you’d be telling it to the relevant scientific authorities, not internet atheists. But yes, I consider this topic exhausted if your argument depends on evolution being false. Go debate evolution in the other sub-forum where people have the patience for this sort of thing. You can make this form of the moral argument here when the scientific consensus is that evolution is false.

so your saying because I didn't claim it all over the internet that my refutation is false. Well lets reverse this idea. So your saying that because you have disproven theism, that you in turn, have told all the churches in the world your findings, and had them accept it as true? You can use whatever rule you wish, but you must apply it to both sides.

 

[gaara4158]

conceivable to me means logically capable of being imagined. It is capable of being imagined but not logically so.

I still don’t know what you mean. What’s the difference between conceivable and logically possible, and which one is evolution of morality not?

so your saying because I didn't claim it all over the internet that my refutation is false. Well lets reverse this idea. So your saying that because you have disproven theism, that you in turn, have told all the churches in the world your findings, and had them accept it as true? You can use whatever rule you wish, but you must apply it to both sides.

Wrong. Even worse. I’m saying your argument isn’t even worth engaging because it’s based on premises that go directly against the scientific consensus. Your argument is less controversial than its main premise. So just go argue the main premise somewhere appropriate.
My counter argument doesn’t depend on atheism, it just depends on evolution, which is in alignment with the scientific consensus, so there’s no need to announce my input to the relevant authorities. I also don’t have to announce it to the churches, because they are not relevant scientific authorities. Most churches, including the Catholic Church. accept evolution anyway.

 

[createdtoworship]

I still don’t know what you mean. What’s the difference between conceivable and logically possible, and which one is evolution of morality not?

conceivable is the same as logically possible. But you said it was conceivable or logically possible, and it's not logical, therefore it is inconceivable.

Wrong. Even worse. I’m saying your argument isn’t even worth engaging because it’s based on premises that go directly against the scientific consensus.

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.

My counter argument doesn’t depend on atheism, it just depends on evolution, which is in alignment with the scientific consensus, so there’s no need to announce my input to the relevant authorities.

I didn't say quote authorities, thats a fallacy like I said. I said to provide evidence evolution on a macro level is true. And you can't, or won't, either way but your premise fails at that point.

I also don’t have to announce it to the churches, because they are not relevant scientific authorities. Most churches, including the Catholic Church. accept evolution anyway.

no, no, no. You said to me to announce my disproving of evolution to the authorities, and because of my lack of doing so it was some how disqualified. And I told you that your refutation of christianity in your posts on this thread are also invalidated because you have not contacted the churches of the most prominent christian influences and mentioned your case. you can do whatever rule you wish but you must apply it to both sides. My refutation of that, was not evolutionary I was simply mentioning your posts as an atheist in this forum, not evolution. So it does not entail scientists.

 

[gaara4158]

conceivable is the same as logically possible. But you said it was conceivable or logically possible, and it's not logical, therefore it is inconceivable.

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

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.

It doesn’t matter how true anything is. What matters is whether you have sufficient reason to believe something. And because the scientific community is virtually unanimous about the truth of evolution, we have perfectly sufficient reason to believe evolution is true. 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 what we have is absolutely no reason to suspect that the scientific community is wrong about evolution. No fallacy, just science.

I didn't say quote authorities, thats a fallacy like I said. I said to provide evidence evolution on a macro level is true. And you can't, or won't, either way but your premise fails at that point.

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

no, no, no. You said to me to announce my disproving of evolution to the authorities, and because of my lack of doing so it was some how disqualified. And I told you that your refutation of christianity in your posts on this thread are also invalidated because you have not contacted the churches of the most prominent christian influences and mentioned your case. you can do whatever rule you wish but you must apply it to both sides. My refutation of that, was not evolutionary I was simply mentioning your posts as an atheist in this forum, not evolution. So it does not entail scientists.

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.