• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Where does morality come from?

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,441
2,688
United States
✟216,414.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
running? How so? I never made the claim animals were not altruistic I said this:

"So no I don't fully believe animals even can be altruistic, in the full definition of the word. I add sacrificial to altruism. And that is not in the definition. "

because self sacrificial love and altruism have different meanings.

altruism is simply doing something selflessly, self sacrificial love is that plus the fact that you are doing something sacrificially. So I was amending the definition of altruism, (which I should not have done). As I don't agree with people changing definitions of words. The problem is that you brought altruism into it, but I was never talking about altruism, I have only debated about self sacrificial love, altruism as I have proven is a different thing. But regardless I did say that altruism can only be proven in an animal if you could read it's thoughts to tell it was doing something unselfishly, and you did not respond, or could not respond to that.
Doesn’t matter at this point how sure you are about your special “self sacrificial love” phenomenon not happening in animals. Your argument hinges on it being true. And you can’t demonstrate that, so your argument fails in the very beginning. But even if it didn’t, I have thoroughly explained why none of the conclusions you draw from it actually follow. So yes, you’re out of rebuttals.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Doesn’t matter at this point how sure you are about your special “self sacrificial love” phenomenon not happening in animals. Your argument hinges on it being true. And you can’t demonstrate that, so your argument fails in the very beginning. But even if it didn’t, I have thoroughly explained why none of the conclusions you draw from it actually follow. So yes, you’re out of rebuttals.

See here is my argument.

there is no evidence of self sacrificial love in animals.

you say that my argument hinges on it being true that animals don't show love.

and then say I can't defend that position.

so you really don't see that you are reversing the burden of proof?

you were asked for evidence of self sacrificial love in animals, where did we get to the fact that I apparently said animals don't show love and thus need to defend that?

you don't have evidence is what it appears and you are attempting to reverse the roles, and make me provide evidence to take the heat off of you.

that is typically why there is motive for reversing the burden of proof.

so hopefully you see this error and will admit your fault.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,441
2,688
United States
✟216,414.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
See here is my argument.

there is no evidence of self sacrificial love in animals.

you say that my argument hinges on it being true that animals don't show love.

and then say I can't defend that position.

so you really don't see that you are reversing the burden of proof?

you were asked for evidence of self sacrificial love in animals, where did we get to the fact that I apparently said animals don't show love and thus need to defend that?

you don't have evidence is what it appears and you are attempting to reverse the roles, and make me provide evidence to take the heat off of you.

that is typically why there is motive for reversing the burden of proof.

so hopefully you see this error and will admit your fault.
You’re not seeing the problem. I don’t need there to be “self sacrificial love” in animals to rebut your argument. And because you have defined “self sacrificial love” in such a way that it would require mind-reading to demonstrate to your satisfaction, I have moved past that point. I’ve told you a few times now how none of the conclusions you draw from your initial premise actually logically follow. You have ignored these points consistently. And I know it’s because you know they’re right and you’re afraid to admit you were wrong, because if you did that then no one would believe what you say anymore. Well, gradyll, you can rest easy. That ship has sailed.

But you still have a chance to win. You can walk away having learned something. Or you can lose, by letting your pride force you to defend an indefensible argument. The choice is yours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,792
✟233,210.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
sure. It's just that english dictionaries did not document the definition that early. So if you can prove that a definition meant something else, at an earlier date, via some dictionary or other official manner, then you may have something here.
I'm not the one who claimed the earliest definition of Atheism; you did. If you want to convince someone you are the one who needs to bring something else to the table; not me.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You’re not seeing the problem. I don’t need there to be “self sacrificial love” in animals to rebut your argument. And because you have defined “self sacrificial love” in such a way that it would require mind-reading to demonstrate to your satisfaction, I have moved past that point. I’ve told you a few times now how none of the conclusions you draw from your initial premise actually logically follow. You have ignored these points consistently. And I know it’s because you know they’re right and you’re afraid to admit you were wrong, because if you did that then no one would believe what you say anymore. Well, gradyll, you can rest easy. That ship has sailed.

But you still have a chance to win. You can walk away having learned something. Or you can lose, by letting your pride force you to defend an indefensible argument. The choice is yours.

well if you wish to make your point again I am willing to listen. I honestly don't see any evidence for your claims. But if you wish this to be done, I understand that too.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,441
2,688
United States
✟216,414.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
well if you wish to make your point again I am willing to listen. I honestly don't see any evidence for your claims. But if you wish this to be done, I understand that too.
Evidence? I’m not talking evidence right now, I’m talking logic. And in fact not one of the steps in your argument logically follow from the last. Even if we don’t observe altruism (or sacrificial love) in other extant species, it does not follow that altruism could not have been a naturally inherited trait in humans. Even if we determined that it wasn’t, that wouldn’t mean the origin was supernatural. And even if we somehow confirmed the origin was supernatural, that would not logically mean that the source is God. This is basic logic. If you’re making arguments like this you shouldn’t wear the brand of “logical debater.”
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Evidence? I’m not talking evidence right now, I’m talking logic. And in fact not one of the steps in your argument logically follow from the last. Even if we don’t observe altruism (or sacrificial love) in other extant species, it does not follow that altruism could not have been a naturally inherited trait in humans. Even if we determined that it wasn’t, that wouldn’t mean the origin was supernatural. And even if we somehow confirmed the origin was supernatural, that would not logically mean that the source is God. This is basic logic. If you’re making arguments like this you shouldn’t wear the brand of “logical debater.”
Sir if humans evolved from apes, why don't apes show forgiveness of enemies? So it's your point that does not logically follow. But now that you say it and confess that you are not truly in search of evidense or truth in this matter. It sort of explains why you are not seeing the logic
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟299,838.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Sir if humans evolved from apes, why don't apes show forgiveness of enemies?

When a species evolves into a new species, it goes without saying that they are different species with different characteristics. Apes and humans are different in all sorts of ways. No evolutionist believes that the pre-evolved species shares all of the same characteristics of the post-evolved species. That would undermine the whole point of evolution, which is meant to give a reason for variation by way of descent.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
When a species evolves into a new species, it goes without saying that they are different species with different characteristics. Apes and humans are different in all sorts of ways. No evolutionist believes that the pre-evolved species shares all of the same characteristics of the post-evolved species. That would undermine the whole point of evolution, which is meant to give a reason for variation by way of descent.
so then what caused the increase in morality? If it is intelligence, one would need to prove that sacrificial love increases the smarter you are, and that is not necessarily the case. So again you have to wonder, why would the ancestor with similar brain size, not have this naturally evolving trait? We already ruled out that intelligence was a factor (as we don't have evidence of that), what other factor would cause humans to have it and apes for example not to have it?
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Are you under the impression the Apes humans evolved from are the same creatures we call Apes today?

no, sir. They would be considered ape like creatures, and humans would not be the same human either, they would be considered for lack of a better term, "human like creatures." That is if I believed in macro evolution. Which there is no evidence for.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Evidence? I’m not talking evidence right now, I’m talking logic. And in fact not one of the steps in your argument logically follow from the last. Even if we don’t observe altruism (or sacrificial love) in other extant species, it does not follow that altruism could not have been a naturally inherited trait in humans. Even if we determined that it wasn’t, that wouldn’t mean the origin was supernatural. And even if we somehow confirmed the origin was supernatural, that would not logically mean that the source is God. This is basic logic. If you’re making arguments like this you shouldn’t wear the brand of “logical debater.”
this was a pretty good post, I want to address this more later. I enjoy logic. and will pick it apart later, I already picked apart the naturally inherited human trait premise by asking why don't apes forgive their enemies. I get to the supernatural, because logically it is the only option left that makes logical sense still. You must use logic on all premises, even your own, and if one does not make logical sense, like the naturally inherited human love, then we go to the next one. God makes sense. logically. And no one has refuted that logic. So therefore it is still a valid option, and the only option that you are I are talking about here that even makes logical sense. Oh and the part about supernatural....it is not supernatural, I never claimed that. A supernatural event can be small or insignificant. The caliber of event that it would take a supernatural being to do, would have to be all powerful, everywhere at once. If there was a supernatural being that was also everywhere at once, then God himself, could not be in the same space. They would not share omnipresence. Nor would they share omnipotence. IF God has all power, and a supernatural being also has all power, that is two beings that have 100% of the power. And that won't work, they would each have 50% power and thus not be God because they would forfeit omnipotence. again the caliber of event would take all power to do. To create dark matter, and a universe and everything in it, light, gravity all of that, even the metaphysical.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That is if I believed in macro evolution. Which there is no evidence for.

The evidence for "macro" evolution is the same as the evidence for "micro" evolution, since they are the same process, just in different degrees. To say that you can have micro but not macro is like saying a wheel can rotate 30 degrees but it can't make a full revolution.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,441
2,688
United States
✟216,414.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sir if humans evolved from apes, why don't apes show forgiveness of enemies? So it's your point that does not logically follow. But now that you say it and confess that you are not truly in search of evidense or truth in this matter. It sort of explains why you are not seeing the logic
We don’t know that our apelike ancestor didn’t show forgiveness of enemies. That’s why that step doesn’t logically follow.

And don’t put words in my mouth. I never said I wasn’t in search of evidence or truth. YOU said I had no evidence for my claims that you were wrong, and I responded that your error wasn’t a matter of evidence, it was a matter of incorrectly applied logic. I can’t believe you’re still so unabashedly dishonest.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,441
2,688
United States
✟216,414.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
this was a pretty good post, I want to address this more later. I enjoy logic. and will pick it apart later, I already picked apart the naturally inherited human trait premise by asking why don't apes forgive their enemies. I get to the supernatural, because logically it is the only option left that makes logical sense still. You must use logic on all premises, even your own, and if one does not make logical sense, like the naturally inherited human love, then we go to the next one. God makes sense. logically. And no one has refuted that logic. So therefore it is still a valid option, and the only option that you are I are talking about here that even makes logical sense. Oh and the part about supernatural....it is not supernatural, I never claimed that. A supernatural event can be small or insignificant. The caliber of event that it would take a supernatural being to do, would have to be all powerful, everywhere at once. If there was a supernatural being that was also everywhere at once, then God himself, could not be in the same space. They would not share omnipresence. Nor would they share omnipotence. IF God has all power, and a supernatural being also has all power, that is two beings that have 100% of the power. And that won't work, they would each have 50% power and thus not be God because they would forfeit omnipotence. again the caliber of event would take all power to do. To create dark matter, and a universe and everything in it, light, gravity all of that, even the metaphysical.
I don’t think you understand what logic is. I think you’re confusing it with intuition, which feels like logic but is actually just an unreliable heuristic that relies on gut feelings. I say this because that’s what your arguments look like. You ask questions, then pick your preferred answer to them and dismiss the possibility of other answers, and call that process logic. It’s really inappropriate. If you were honest with yourself you’d give other options their due consideration.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,441
2,688
United States
✟216,414.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
so then what caused the increase in morality? If it is intelligence, one would need to prove that sacrificial love increases the smarter you are, and that is not necessarily the case. So again you have to wonder, why would the ancestor with similar brain size, not have this naturally evolving trait? We already ruled out that intelligence was a factor (as we don't have evidence of that), what other factor would cause humans to have it and apes for example not to have it?
The same thing that caused the rest of the differences between apes and men.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The evidence for "macro" evolution is the same as the evidence for "micro" evolution, since they are the same process, just in different degrees. To say that you can have micro but not macro is like saying a wheel can rotate 30 degrees but it can't make a full revolution.
you made a lot of statements that are unverified there, you mind giving citations?
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The same thing that caused the rest of the differences between apes and men.

and what is that exactly, and how does it correlate with your beloved evolution. After all it would seem to contradict evolution. And so it boils down to the fact that these human traits have no evidence of evolving, at least in the examples you provide.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
you made a lot of statements that are unverified there, you mind giving citations?

CitationS? do you accept the following...

Variation: In all species, individuals differ in their genetic makeup, producing many variations in their physical features; individuals in a population vary from each other.

Inheritance: Individuals pass some of their genetic material to their offspring; parents pass on their traits to their offspring.

Selection: Some individuals have inherited character (genes) that allows them to better survive or produce more offspring. These offspring, in turn, are more likely to survive and create offspring of their own. As a result, their genes become more common in the entire population; some variants reproduce more than others.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
you made a lot of statements that are unverified there, you mind giving citations?

Evolution at different scales: micro to macro

Microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing, just on different scales. Like a second vs. an hour. Both are periods of time, one is just more time. Macroevolution is just more evolution than microevolution. Source

Macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different scales. Source

The changes in the genetic code are called evolution. The genes carry all the genetic information and are responsible for small changes in these genetic code known as microevolution, and sometimes these changes can be vast to form new species so termed macroevolution while genes vary significantly between forms of life, though the basic mechanisms of alteration in all genes are same. Source

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0