There does? Quite obviously, I am a counterexample. Suppose you saw a well groomed man gently tending to a homeless man, offering him a blanket and a hot cup of chocolate on a cold morning. Would you surmise that the generous man is doing a morally good or morally evil act? I would not.
Belatedly remembered why I started down this road.
I proposed to Stone Girl that the notion that universe required a Creator but that God didn’t require a Creator involved a contradiction.
You suggested that there was no contradiction if the Creator was not a physical entity. You went on to state that “An essentialist understands that if God did not exist, then His essence — goodness — would compel Him to emerge”, and reinforced it with “Again, I define goodness as that aesthetic which edifies. As such, it is only logical that if there is a state of existence, then its Agent should emerge into that state”.
Now, I think I’m getting to grips with the idea of “essence”, but I’m not clear about the sense in which you’re using “existence”. In particular, the meaning of the phrase “if there is a state of existence” as used above isn’t clear to me. I’m reading it to mean “if anything exists”. So if I’m following, if anything exists, God must exist.
If God’s essence of goodness compels God to emerge, why doesn’t the essence of the Sasquatch cause it to emerge? In fact, why don’t the essences of everything that could possibly exist cause them to emerge?
You gave “God” as an example of something that exists, and the Sasquatch as an example of something that doesn’t exist. Could you give me more examples of things that exist? Do atoms exist? Does the number 2 exist? Does the essence of something exist?
Here, you and I part company. I don’t believe man is a dual creature, I believe that the man made of atoms is all there is, and I don’t believe the man of atoms is amoral. But let’s not let that get in the way!
Yes, that is exactly correct. In fact, it is provable that the possibility of Its existence compels the actuality of Its existence.
Because the essence of the Sasquatch is not goodness. It is the attribute of edification — building up as opposed to tearing down, creating as opposed to destroying, ameliorating as opposed to despoiling — that is key. If there were existence without God, then there would be existence without goodness (since there would be no Agent to facilitate it). But if there were existence without goodness, then goodness would not be edifying that existence. That conclusion would contradict our premise (that goodness edifies) and so would be false. Its opposite, therefore, is true. Goodness must exist.
God’s existence is unique in that Its existence is objective, without contingency on convention, perception, language, or thought. Therefore, God is all that is real. Lots of things exist, but they all depend upon our perception. The essence of a tree is different from the reference frame of a man and a snake. God is essentially good, regardless of reference frame. Since reality is defined as “Existing objectively … regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language”, God is real.
I do understand that that is what you believe. I tell you what I believe so that you might better understand what I’m saying. It is something you must always keep in mind when I answer you, or else you will always be bewildered by the answer. As I see it, atomic man is dying from the moment he is born, but spiritual man has always existed and will never die.
[QUOTE]
yes
I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. I mean Compared to other species of animals and insects , yes we are miles ahead.
Is that all we strive for?
Because of my original post. On the evolutionary scale we are miles ahead in the area of cooperation but we are also the only species that slaughters each other by the thousands for reasons other than survival or food. So while we exhibit cooperatin we also exhibit the most non cooperation and down right self destructive traits of any species. Interesting contradiction isn’t it?
No I’m not. I understood the difference when I asked my questions. We just got of on a tangent.
I see, so kindness comes from
and our inner voice is
fair enough. That doesn’t answer those questions for me but my thanks for replying. The scope of our kindness and ability to sacrifice for one another and the opposite end of the spectrum, mind boggling cruelty and destructiveness, seem to go far beyond the boundries of evolution.
Youi ask where do all the bad things come from. The short answer is choice. Why are we even moved to choose those things. It is the struggle between our ability to embrace delusion and the truth.
Do you think evolution is the answer to the amazing spectrum of our choices?
See, thats why I love you guys. You make me clarify my own thinking and examine my choice of words. 
I see morality as a by product of the still small voice of God within us. In God there is no duality. Moral and immoral. These are our words that we created in a world where we create the duality.
So, morality means “differentiating between good and bad”. What does that have to do with god?
Well, that’s all we have to compare with.
No, nor did I say it was. I merely said that we are an extremely successful species. We’re not quite cockroaches, but we’re good. That doesn’t mean evolutionary success is all we strive for, not that evolutionary success is even worth striving for.
We are also the only species with enough time on its hand to be able to slaughter each other for reasons other than survival or food, and the only species (or possibly one of very few) with the brains to come up with reasons other than survival or food.
If you say so.
Why?
The good things come from god, and the bad things from choice?
Difficult to answer, as I don’t know what the question is that evolution would be the answer to. What is so strange about the “amazing spectrum” of our choices?
OK. A little piece of god is within everyone (every human? every adult human? every human without serious mental deficiencies? every living thing? every mammal?), and from that comes the ability to differentiate between good and bad. Does that sum up your position?
I feel a tangent coming on.
Could you explain? Do you mean the physical act is neutral and you wouldn’t guess at the mans motives? On the surface it appears an act of kindness.
and oh yeah
Personaly I think the Godly know better, but if you’re speaking of believers in general, lots of us don’t believe this. Lots do.
not really. It probably would have a year or so ago.
Are we just these bodies? Are we bodies with spirits or souls? Are we souls who temporarily use these bodies? I prefer the latter.
The essence of God runs through all life and calls us back to that reality. We cling to our temporary and deteriorating bodies as the prime reality, as if thats really who we are. In doing that we create the duality that needs words like moral and immoral. The parameters of right and wrong fluctuate. There are some commonly accepted boundries but even those can be circumstantial.
I understand how evolution relates to good and bad. Survival and procreation are good. Things that threaten them are bad.
How does evolution relate to right and wrong? Do right and wrong, ever conflict with survival and porcreation? Do we occasionaly go against our normal evolutionary urges to sacrifice ourselves for others? to risk ourselves because of our committment to a belief?
This is why I think we’ll never reach a point where we can say we understand each other. Not even agree with, mind, just understand. Using the word “prefer” in a factual matter is incomprehensible to me.
Try and explain this more closely. There is a soul/body-duality, and because we put too much emphasis on the body part, we create the moral/immoral duality which didn’t exist before?
What you’re saying here is that everyone’s opinion about morally right and morally wrong is different? Yep, agree with that. Can’t imagine anyone who wouldn’t.
Well, not really. Evolution doesn’t have the concepts of good and bad. Survival and procreation are good for the survival of a species, and things that threaten them are bad for the survival of the species, but evolution itself just happens.
It doesn’t, just like gravity doesn’t.
In my opinion, yes.
Yes we do. I’d have to note that these examples don’t necessarily conflict with survival and procreation. If you sacrifice your life to save the lives of five fertile people, you just assisted survival and procreation. Same with suicidal bees and the like.
[
Me post 120
The still small voice. The voice of God within us that is too often buried by the illusion that we are seperate and pursueing seperate lives with seperate interests.
The voice of God calls us to wake up from that illusion. It is the stirring within us that allows us to wonder, “Is this right or wrong?” Is this truth or untruth?" “Is this good or evil?”
Me post 130
No, we’re infants comapred to what we’ve had brief glimpses of as our potential.
Ghandi, Jesus, Buddha, others. Moments in history where peace, cultural exchange and religious expression flourished without violence. You can argue that evolution will get us there. I don’t agree. It is that still small voice of God that has allowed us these glimpses and kindles our hope for ourselves as individuals and a race.
Do you think we are striveing for something else? If so what?
Hmmm, from Mother Thresa tending the lepers to genocide in Africa the spectrum of our choices seem to me {as in just my opinion} to go far beyond survival of the species and procreation. I’m curious as to what evolution say about these types of choices. I confess my ignorence on the subject. In an earlier post someone suggested a book.
No, the desire to discover the difference comes from God. Both are choices.
I think you’re grossly overvaluing these people, or grossly undervaluing the rest of us.
I don’t, and don’t care. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Not “we” as a collective, no. Nothing.
Yes, these things come as side-effects of our intelligence.
Nothing, primarily because evolution says precisely nothing about anything.
Do you believe that a child deliberately brought up in an environment where absolutely nothing were labeled as right and wrong would still invent these concepts and try to ascertain the difference?
That’s exactly why I see goodness as an aesthetic rather than an ethic. Children don’t look for right or wrong, but they do look for love.
MOP? If that’s it, then I heartily disagree.
Lions, bears, dolphins, crows, mice, and rats all kill the young of their own species for neither survival or food. Langurs, baboons, gulls, hyenas, and frogs all eat their own species for food. In fact there are about 140 species that are cannabalistic. If they don’t do so by the thousands it is because there are fewer of them and they haven’t developed weapons.
And have little to do with survival of the species since they are way out on the fringes of the distribution of behavior characteristics.
Mother Teresa treating lepers has no effect on the incidence of leprosy except possibly as publicity that will get some medical scientist interested in the subject.
Genocide is a bigger effect, however I doubt that it has much effect on species survival.
You’re entitled. But speaking for myself, I do not decide when I will and when I will not “agree” with valid logical inference. A reasonable man may reject the premise, but a man who rejects the argument without rejecting the premise is definitively unreasonable.
[QUOTE]
I’m confused. When speaking of things that are mere theories and can’t be proven or disproven, I can choose which I prefer until more evidence refines my choice. Example our discussion of right and wrong. You may prefer to believe X is morally wrong for now. Given more info and experience you may change your asessment of X.
I’ll save this respponse for a seperate post later.
Finally I’m getting it. Thanks
Yeah, it’s a valid logical inference, but it’s a proof that comes up with two diametrically opposed conclusions if you use two different but equally valid premises. It’s qHow useless is that? I’m rejecting the argument because of this. And since you’ve never given a valid reason for using one premise over the