How do you define “evil”? Is it not something like “causing pain” or “causing harm”? Seems like this isn’t a question for science or for religion, but for Webster to answer.
Science: we evolved from earlier species of apes who evolved from an earlier species who evolved … who evolved from the earliest self-reproducing molecules.
Religion: We got created 6,000 years ago, which has been disproven. Or substitute the answer from your favorite religion - which has also been falsified except inasmuch as it copies the answers of science.
Science: It appears that nothing is an unstable state. In any case if there were nothing we wouldn’t be around to wonder about it.
Religion: God. Why is there God instead of nothing? mumble, ,mumble.
Which morality? Our variety or the Aztec variety?
Why wasn’t there intelligence for 99.99% of the history of earth? Asking the question presupposes intelligence. In any case intelligence clearly offers reproductive advantages.
Science can talk about the future of the universe. Religions answers to these questions don’t seem to either be specific or correct in terms of predictions.
As my friends father used to say, Why is a crooked letter. Why do we have to be here for a reason at all? The reason we all specifically are here is an almost infinitely complex set of circumstances throughout history that led to the meeting of our ancestors and eventually to the one sperm that defines us to reach the one egg that defines us. Why? No reason - it just is.
So let’s be clear on what sort of evidence would be needed. What would this world look like if it were created by God?
but all science is based on faith…right? at the bottom, we have to make certain assumptions about reality or science would be impossible. how do you justify these assumptions or presuppositions with the scientific method?
If it cannot be observed - then then there is no evidence of its existence - therefore it does not exist.
If it cannot be observed - even IF it does exist - its existence would then be irrelevant.
Can this ‘god’ of yours interact with ‘our universe’ ? if so, then that interaction must be observable - that would be evidence of its existence.
Please provide objective evidence for this being.
A copyright notice.
[QUOTE=cornopean]
But noone can use the scientific method to determine if altruism is good or evil. Why won’t anyone grant this point? It’s rather obvious…no?
[/QUOTE]
“good” and “evil” are very flexible notions. Downright arbitrary in some contexts.
But game theory can, and has, empirically proven than altruistic (specifically tit-for-tat + unquestioning forgiveness + trust in “goodness” of other players assumed until factually disproven) strategies work better than others in most applications. Some would call this “good”.
I’m sorry, I’m not in the habit of responding to questions with questions, but do you seriously think that no one ever considered the infliction of pain to be evil before Christianity came along?
Anyway, you’re making the assertions about God here. Feel free to discuss why you think the existence of God is adequate to explain why causing pain is considered evil (in some contexts).
Or just talk to the other posters, I’m pretty much done here.
You have no idea what you are talking about -
Define “Faith” - if you need help, there is a thread down the hall.
People are quite capable of telling us that themselves. I see where you’re going now: Morality can’t exist without a God, so non-believers must be amoral. Or perhaps, that the existence of a moral code proves the existence of God.
This does not follow. It is perfectly possible to construct a moral code based on our observation of successful communities and non-successful communities throughout history. We can construct a moral code by examining how we feel about pain and loss of liberty and such and generalizing it to others.
We are social creatures and have evolved instincts and feelings and behaviors that facilitate working and living together effectively, just as dogs have learned their own moral behavior as part of a pack.
Because we have evolved rational minds, our morality has become complicated and full of abstractions and higher-order concepts, but ultimately it’s all about how we effectively live together in thriving social communities. For example, we’ve decided it’s immoral to randomly punch people in the face not because God told us to, but because a society full of random face punching will not survive and out-compete one in which people learn to restrain from doing so.
Life proves there is a creator. For life to come from non-life is impossible.
Scientist use the think that cells were formed when amino acids in some pond assembled themselves into a cell. Now they know better.
When we look at how proteins are constructed, the chances of getting an average viable protein 150 amino acids long by chance is next to impossible. The order of amino acids has to be correct so the chain can be rolled up into a 3 dimensional protein. If the amino acids are out of order then connections can not be made during roll up and the amino chain will be is destroyed.
But if by chance we got very lucky, you only have one protein. The simplest cell needs over 600 proteins. And the cell needs to be able to replicate itself before we can even talk about evolution.
The cell creates all the proteins it needs from instructions buried in the DNA. To manufacture these proteins the cell uses molecular machines which are themselves made from proteins (chicken and egg problem). There are molecular machines that unrival the DNA at certain points so other molecular machine can read it producing RNA. Then another molecular machine transports the RNA to the outside of the nucleus to another molecular machine that generates the amino acid chain from the RNA. Then another molecular machine transports it to a molecular machine that rolls it up into a 3 dimensional protein and then another molecular machine transports the protein to where it is needed.
The problem should become clear. Where did these molecular machines come from when the chances of amino acids assembling themselves into proteins are almost non existent. And how do these machines know how to work together to keep the cell alive. Without DNA the cell can not manufacture proteins and without proteins the DNA is useless.
Where did the DNA come from? The DNA is an extremely large digital program that is compacted into the nucleus of a cell. This does not even come close to what man has accomplished so far. If you found a large digital program on earth that was so miniaturized as this, wouldn’t you think we are not alone?
What’s the Minimum DNA Amount for Life?
A team of researchers wanted to know. They did this by tinkering with a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium, which is the simplest known organism. Its genetic code is about 580,000 letters long and spells out 480 protein producing genes plus 37 kinds of RNA. After the researchers knocked out various protein coding genes they got the estimated genes down to 265 to 350 that are essential for life under laboratory conditions - an extremely favorable environment that would not be found on the early earth.
What is the size of a gene? Bacteria has 1,000 base pairs for each gene. What are the chances of getting 480 genes each 1,000 base pairs long (actually more than this 580,000 / 480) in the correct order?
What are the chances of getting these genes in a structure along with the various molecular machines to get at the genes?
DNA is an extremely information rich system that can not be explained by chance.
The living cell is irreducibly complex on every level. All the parts have to be in place to have a replicating cell. It can not be build little by little until Mount Improbable is reached.
SETI is looking for intelligent life in the universe by searching for signals that are polarized or with coded information. By this criterion they infer intelligence. Complexity and high improbability.
We can infer an intelligent designer of life by the extreme complexity and impossibility.
There is no doubt God exists.
first, very few religionists believe the earth is 6000 yrs old.
second, can science tell us why the life of an ape is less valuable than the life of a human?
so science has no answer here. and as for religion, the reason there must be God is b/c there is now something. if there is something now, then there must be an eternal being capable of bringing something out of nothing.
It doesn’t matter. all cultures hold that some things are right and other things are wrong. can science help us figure out who is right?
but religionists believe that it is irrational to believe that mind came from matter. It is more rational to believe that matter came from mind.
you think that the only things we can know are those things we can observe?
sorry you mistook my meaning. my assertion is that science cannot tell us if it is wrong to inflict pain on people. I said nothing about the bible or Christianity.
well the theory is that a moral God created people with a sense of His own morals imprinted on their soul.
that first sentence is a very strong argument. 
the definition of faith here is something we accept as true without it being proven to be true by other propositions. wikipedia says: “a first principle is a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.”
I think we got here b/c I was asking if scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge we can have. then I attempted to refute this notion by pointing to morality as something that science cannot decide.
so no…right now I am not arguing from morality to the existence of God.
You are confusing knowledge with evidence for a ‘thing’ - and yeah - everything we know comes from observation of something.
name something that doesn’t.
(and lest you bring up ‘art’ or ‘love’ - those are still observable, even if they are fully subjective in action or more ‘emotion’ based)
Have you read about your ‘moral’ god? or do you just subscribe to teh ‘good parts’ version?
Faith is belief without evidence - period.
Science is not faith based in any sense of the word.
But would you say that science proves the existence of God?
First, you need to provide a fucking good cite to prove that or you’re just blowing it out your ass.
Second, the very fact that life appeared on Earth without evidence of any god is disproof of your claim. That life can come from non-life is pretty much a sure thing, so your premise is faulty.
that’s easy. the reliability of our senses. causing pain to other people is wrong. the very idea that we only know what we can observe is not based on science.
This is a very common Creationist/ID claim, and is rebutted here. To sum up, DNA likely evolved from a simpler predecessor like RNA (and even simpler molecules), which could replicate without proteins.
Another common Creationist/ID claim. Rebutted here. Essentially, information “assembles” itself, without any intelligent guidance, all the time in the natural world.
The big daddy of Creationist/ID claims- irreducible complexity. It’s pretty trivial to rebut (here)- irreducible complexity can and has evolved many times, through methods such as deletion of parts, addition of multiple parts, change of function, addition of a second function to a part, and gradual modification of parts.
Many biological structures (like the flagellum) have been claimed to be irreducibly complex, but inevitably, the mechanism for how this particular structure evolved has been found.
No we can’t. There’s not a single shred of evidence that points to an intelligent designer to the exclusion of other explanations like evolution, and evolution has a mountain of evidence behind it (and ID has none).
Perhaps not for you, but I (and many others) have doubts.