- NEW!
by Truth Seeker on November 9th, 2009
I heard this reasoning from a college campus preacher and it has stayed with me throughout my studies:
Please read the entire section before forming an opinion.
Suppose I took an infant and slit his throat in front of millions. The OVERWHELMING majority (99.9%) of people would feel something wrong deep inside them. Just writing it or reading it causes a stir deep within us. Harming an infant who did not and could not have done anything to deserve this treatment is wrong. This would be true regardless of the people having different religions or laws. This basic moral in all of us proves we are connected and have a purpose.
If life started as an accident (no intelligent design), there would be no morals because we should not even be here. Life would have no meaning, so the loss of life would have no meaning.
Science and religion are not at odds. They are answering different questions on the same issue. Science deals more with how. Religion deals more with who. Both deal with our existence. Both are incomplete and cannot be entirely understood until we are able to raise our level of thinking.
husband wants to know where dinosaurs fit in our history in relation to the Catholic Religion
by carrye66@yahoo.com on March 31st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Is the only scientific explanation for Jesus hypothetically rising from the dead Erotic Asphyxiation?
by MyUsernameIsNotLongEnough(lolPenaltyBox) on June 3rd, 2011
| 3 people like this
Can intelligence arise from inanimate matter without the input of Intelligence?
by TrueSeeker on July 30th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What was God's plan with C. Diff? Why make a bacteria that would cause you to die like that?
by n1kkigirl on March 29th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
How can we combat attempts by science and religion to demystify daily life?
by GibsonGuy on February 3rd, 2011
| 2 people like this
You're reading Is there one, single piece of testable evidence that clearly points to a creator god?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
"This basic moral in all of us proves we are connected and have a purpose. " - How? First - I know of many times and situations in which killing babies has been accepted and even applauded (one such is in the OT). And how does that even imply - let alone prove - that we have a purpose?
.
"If life started as an accident (no intelligent design), there would be no morals because we should not even be here." - This makes no sense. None of it follows. How does life starting with or without a design effect morals? And what do morals have to do with us being here?
.
"Science deals more with how. Religion deals more with who." - That assumes there IS a "who". Science attempts to find how things could have happened without a who. And it's quite successful at it. That doesn't mean that there IS no "who" - just that one isn't necessary. Just like fairies, Santa, the ancient gods, are not necessary - and very few, if any, adults really believe in them anymore.
by 23Skidoo on November 9th, 2009
This is a typical case of very poor and perhaps intentionally misleading reasoning masquerading as logic. It falls under it's own internal flaws.
.
It doesn't come anywhere near close to testable evidence.
by 23Skidoo on November 9th, 2009
Great response 23.
by Hyperion is back in China on November 9th, 2009
If life started w/o a design then there would be no morals. There would be no place for morals because life would not have value, it wasn't even supposed to happen.
The old testament is referring to the sacrifices to a god, Baal. Even in that act the people recognized a higher being.
Science does not attempt to explain what happened w/ or w/o a who. It just attempts to explain what is.
Science on this planet is still young, just like religion. Science told me Pluto was a planet. Now it tells my children Pluto is not a planet(dwarf). Jesus did not finish educating his disciples before the end of his ministry. Both are unfinished. There are many things that will come out soon enough.
by Truth Seeker on November 9th, 2009
Moral are very easily explain by evolution.
.
Intelligent animals living in groups where cooperation is important and betrayal is possible learn to recognize other individuals. And they learn to remember how that individual treated them recently. Very easily an "I got treated well / badly hence I will trust / distrust that guy now." mentality begins to evolve. And that is the basis of morality.
.
People don't kill those they consider people because they need those people's trust. Of course - almost every society has a way of dehumanizing some group - so all's fair with them :-)
.
Can you substantiate, "If life started w/o a design then there would be no morals. There would be no place for morals because life would not have value, it wasn't even supposed to happen." ?
.
Unless there is something to back it up it is as true as "Without the color red there would be no anger since we need it to see red". It's making factual connection between to unrelated things.
.
by 23Skidoo on November 10th, 2009
Whether "we have value" or not depends on someone placing that value on us. I have value to myself. My family and friends have value to me. All people have philosophical value to me - though that can be degraded to just about nothing by their actions.
.
But to a psychopath, I should think no one except himself has any value at all.
.
In neither case3 is any kind of a god necessary - nor doe either case have any baring at all on morality.
.
For there to be some universal value there would have to be a universal "giver" or "appreciator" of that value - a god. So, you can use value (that depends on a god) as evidence for god. Circular reasoning.
by 23Skidoo on November 10th, 2009