The Moral Argument for God's Existence

[JimL]

If you consider morality to be those laws that serve the best interests of human beings and society, then ethical relativism is false and morals are objective within nature itself, and there is no need of an objective source of morality external to nature. Thats why we make laws, because of their objective effect on society.

[seer]

But the Constitution as expressed in the Civil Rights Act, does

No Tass the Constitution says no such thing, not when it comes to forcing one man to serve another, just the opposite.

13th Amendment

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

IS in the Constitution - free EXERCISE of religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

So you can't say that evolution is true? I will remember that in the future. Truth, definition: Conformity to fact or actuality.

[seer]

There's no dualism, "emergent" or otherwise. All the evidence indicates that the mind and consciousness can be reduced to the neurological function of the brain and nervous system.

No it is not. Like Sam Harris said, there is no reason to expect to see "consciousness" from physical forces. We have no idea why consciousness emerged.

[shunyadragon]

No it is not. Like Sam Harris said, there is no reason to expect to see "consciousness" from physical forces. We have no idea why consciousness emerged.

The objective methods of science do not determine 'why' anything exists, originates nor emerges. That is the realm of philosophy and theology. Science can falsify the 'how' consciousness emerges from physical processes, and he evidence is substantial for the evolution of the mind and consciousness as parallel to the natural evolution of the brain. Your usual arguments represent a hypothetical 'arguing from ignorance.'

[Tassman]

No Tass the Constitution says no such thing, not when it comes to forcing one man to serve another, just the opposite.

The court rulings against discrimination, e.g. re the cake shop dispute, disagree with your demand for special privileges as a Christian.

IS in the Constitution - free EXERCISE of religion.

You have the right to believe whatever crap you like; you do NOT have the right to discriminate against others on the basis of it.

So you can't say that evolution is true? I will remember that in the future.

Truth, definition: Conformity to fact or actuality.

No it is not. Like Sam Harris said, there is no reason to expect to see "consciousness" from physical forces. We have no idea why consciousness emerged.

Ah, your favourite quote-mine from atheist Sam Harris.

Nevertheless , we know that "consciousness" exists; there is every reason to think it developed via natural causes and no reason to believe god-did-it...and from Sam Harris of all people.

[shunyadragon]

Ah, your favourite quote-mine from atheist Sam Harris.

Nevertheless , we know that "consciousness" exists; there is every reason to think it developed via natural causes and no reason to believe god-did-it...and from Sam Harris of all people.

Please note, Sam Harris is justified in saying science cannot determine the reason (priori purpose) nor why? mind and consciousness evolved, because this is the realm of philosophy and theology. Science can falsify the how mind and consciousness evolved naturally with the increased complexity of the brain, particularly in primates. Though primitive aspects of moral and intelligent social behavior also are found in sea mammals and pacyderms. Also, consciousness is universal in all mammals.

[JimL]

Please note, Sam Harris is justified in saying science cannot determine the reason (priori purpose) nor why? mind and consciousness evolved, because this is the realm of philosophy and theology. Science can falsify the how mind and consciousness evolved naturally with the increased complexity of the brain, particularly in primates. Though primitive aspects of moral and intelligent social behavior also are found in sea mammals and pacyderms. Also, consciousness is universal in all mammals.

Philosophy and theology cannot determine the reason (priori purpose) nor why, mind and consciousness evolved either, any more so than can science. There needn't be a reason!

[seer]

The court rulings against discrimination, e.g. re the cake shop dispute, disagree with your demand for special privileges as a Christian.

Which Court? Not the Supreme Court. Besides it wouldn't be the first time that liberal Courts ignored the Constitution. And if you think the preventing of forcing one man to serve another man by threat of law is a "special privilege" then you really are a fascist. Like I said you leftists have no problem forcing your moral sensibilities on others.

You have the right to believe whatever crap you like; you do NOT have the right to discriminate against others on the basis of it.

No Homer, it is not about believing - the Constitution says free EXERCISE of religion. That is about acting on our faith, not merely belief. And you speak of discrimination, yet you have no problem discriminating against the Christian baker, forcing him to violate his conscience and faith. And all this for a cake - make your own stupid cake!

Ah, your favourite quote-mine from atheist Sam Harris.

Nevertheless , we know that "consciousness" exists; there is every reason to think it developed via natural causes and no reason to believe god-did-it...and from Sam Harris of all people.

[/QUOTE]

It is not a quote mine, you know Tass that the hard problem of consciousness is widely known. And there is no compelling scientific answer for it.

[JimL]

Which Court? Not the Supreme Court. Besides it wouldn't be the first time that liberal Courts ignored the Constitution. And if you think the preventing of forcing one man to serve another man by threat of law is a "special privilege" then you really are a fascist. Like I said you leftists have no problem forcing your moral sensibilities on others.

Morals are the force of law seer. You can't murder someone just because you personally feel it is moral to do so.

No Homer, it is not about believing - the Constitution says free EXERCISE of religion. That is about acting on our faith, not merely belief. And you speak of discrimination, yet you have no problem discriminating against the Christian baker, forcing him to violate his conscience and faith. And all this for a cake - make your own stupid cake!

Like Tass said, you have the right to believe what you want and act upon it, so long as you don't break the law in doing so.

It is not a quote mine, you know Tass that the hard problem of consciousness is widely known. And there is no compelling scientific answer for it.

Thats correct, "no absolute answer," including that god-did-it, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

[seer]

Morals are the force of law seer. You can't murder someone just because you personally feel it is moral to do so.

I agree, but Tass was speaking of Christians forcing their moral ideals on society, but he has no problem forcing his moral views on others. Hypocritical.

Like Tass said, you have the right to believe what you want and act upon it, so long as you don't break the law in doing so.

The laws that liberals like?

Thats correct, "no absolute answer," including that god-did-it, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Except with God you have Consciousness creating consciousness (like for like), with the forces of nature you have non-consciousness creating consciousness (creating its opposite, something not inherent and foreign to these physical laws).

[Tassman]

Which Court? Not the Supreme Court. Besides it wouldn't be the first time that liberal Courts ignored the Constitution. And if you think the preventing of forcing one man to serve another man by threat of law is a "special privilege" then you really are a fascist. Like I said you leftists have no problem forcing your moral sensibilities on others.

No Homer, it is not about believing - the Constitution says free EXERCISE of religion. That is about acting on our faith, not merely belief. And you speak of discrimination, yet you have no problem discriminating against the Christian baker, forcing him to violate his conscience and faith. And all this for a cake - make your own stupid cake!

It is not a quote mine, you know Tass that the hard problem of consciousness is widely known. And there is no compelling scientific answer for it.

Except with God you have Consciousness creating consciousness (like for like), with the forces of nature you have non-consciousness creating consciousness (creating its opposite, something not inherent and foreign to these physical laws).

[shunyadragon]

Philosophy and theology cannot determine the reason (priori purpose) nor why, mind and consciousness evolved either, any more so than can science. There needn't be a reason!

It remains that this is the realm of philosophy and theology whether anything can achieve results from their efforts or not. Sam Harris is justified to say that it is not the realm of science to propose theories nor hypothesis to solve these unknowns.

The above represents your philosophy and not science. True, the philosophical belief that there is not necessarily a reason is valid.

The flaw I pointed out was seer's selective quote mining of Sam Harris, which had nothing to do with the science of the relationship between the brain, and mind and consciousness.

[seer]

And neither Constitution or the Civil Rights act say we can't discriminate based on sexual behavior.


That is pure bunk, when you force one man to serve another under threat of law you are violating his civil rights in the most fundamental way, it is called servitude. But like I said you leftists have no problem forcing your moral views on others. And since when does any man have a right to the fruits of my labor? Where in the Constitution do you find that - be specific please.


And there is no evidence that nature did it. Or could.

[shunyadragon]

And neither Constitution or the Civil Rights act say we can't discriminate based on sexual behavior.

On the personal preference level this true, but as far as the public place and application of laws it has been determined that this is unconstitutional, the same as racial, ethnic, and gender.

Personal preference would be your own choices of friends, marriage partner, associates, belief, place of worship, and other issues of personal choice that do not discriminate in the public place.

And there is no evidence that nature did it. Or could.

False, there is abundant objective falsifiable evidence that nature did it, and is capable. In fact that is the only objective evidence we have. The negative cannot be falsified as you often assert.

[Tassman]

And neither Constitution or the Civil Rights act say we can't discriminate based on sexual behavior.

That is pure bunk, when you force one man to serve another under threat of law you are violating his civil rights in the most fundamental way, it is called servitude. But like I said you leftists have no problem forcing your moral views on others. And since when does any man have a right to the fruits of my labor? Where in the Constitution do you find that - be specific please.

Not according to the law of the land. See above.

And there is no evidence that nature did it. Or could.