1> That’s life… I agree. But humans have an aversion to murder, and the claim is that this aversion ‘evolved’. Evolution decrees that at some point the single cell organisms began to develop and over millions of years we get more complex life forms, and ultimately man. During this lengthy process, the earliest life forms who ARE capable and motivated to kill ‘appear’. As they appear, they compete, fight, kill, get diseased, etc. It is inconceivable that fledging populations would suurvive.
2> The two points…On page 15 I asked the following question:
*Is the naturalistic position that an aversion to murder is:
a> a hard wired emotional response, unrelated to ‘survival’ as such,
or is it
b> a neurological response to a subconscious desire for survival? are the answers given to my question arguments that apply to both hard wiring and survival.*
Diogenes specifically ruled out b in post 698 when he stated “It is a. It has nothing to do with a subconscious deisre for survival…”. Apollyon suggested it could be both (post 695), although I believe he did clarify that postion later. I believe another poster suggested it was b.
The point is that neither answer gets around the fundamental problem…how did fledgling populations survive the early stages of the development of this aversion as they competed, without it, for resources, food, mates, territory, etc etc etc.
1> I agree with you on ‘proof’. It is interesting to note that the Bible stated that the earth was round, and not at the centre of the universe, long before man knew these to be true.
2> Science is about establishing truth about the natural world. It is about trial and error, experiment and observation. But it’s very nature it may proove itself wrong more often than it proves itself right. I have no issue with science, however I have a healthy scepticism of scientists. Scientists compete for funding, distort results, exagerate claims and even (in the worst cases) fabricate findings. Not a good look.
A tooth and claw society is one that deploys the basic instincts of sruvival. The expression ‘natuure is red in tooth and claw’ is wiidely used…google it. You’re just sore because you can’t answer my objection to the evolution of aversion to murder. get over it.
1> In a species where it’s ‘every organism for itself’, the more vicious creatures, or let’s say the intial ‘survivors’, will ultimately compete with other ‘vicious creatures’ once the weak are eliminated. At that point, with no developed sense of empathy, the competion, and therefore the killing will prevent the species repopulating.
2> The cooperation you speak of amongst ‘we apes’ would never eventuate. Earlier life forms ould simply not survive the brutality of life long enough. That is the entre point. And as an aside, the trait of ‘cooperation’ would also need to evolve, against a battle for survival. It is utterly implausible.
1> Actually there are many forms of truth, so I take your point. Let me clarify. God is not beyond logic. In fact we have logic only because of God.
2> If I stated God is ‘unknowable’ then I erred. We can not understand everything about Gid, but we can certainly know Him, and know about Him. But even if He weree unknowable, that would not limit our ability to comprehend the probability of His existence. ‘Knowing’ about something is quite a different matter to comprehending its existence.
3> The choices are:
a> faith in the hypothesis that everything that is can be accounted for by purely naturalistic explanations, and that nothing exists outside the natural.
b> faith in the hypothesis that an intelligent agent existing outside of the natural universe, brought the natural universe into existence.
There is no contradiction with a creator creating time. Unless you can prove that any other form of time to the one we experinece is impossible, you cannot discount it.
1> The universe could not exist wiithout an uncaused first cause.
2> The uncaused first cause MUST, by definition, be outside of time as we understand it.
3> You have no evidence for an eternally existing universe or for a natural universe coming into being without a cause. These thoughts are as much beliefs as the existence of God.
Explanations and theoretical models are no more evidence than argumentation for an intelligent agent. There is not a single shred of empirical evidence that even a single other universe exists. In the 1970’s we had explanations and theoretical models that the earth was headed for an imminenet ice age.
This is not true. This is simply an ignorant, unfounded belief you are unwilling to drop.
Since an uncaused first cause is nothing but gibberish you’re making up, sure, whatever you want it to do. If you want it to enlarge penises or fart lighting, that’s cool too.
You don’t have any evidence either. The proper answer to a question with no evidence one way or another is “I don’t know.” Not to assert childish nonsense about God.
1> There is no single example of any other ‘thing’ in the naural universe coming into existnece from nothing. That is a fact. So you are compelled to believe something that has never once been observed in the natural universe. That isn;t scienece, it;s blind faith.
2> ‘You don’t have any evidence either’ is hardly argumentation. So you admit you don’t know. Fine. I have made it clear I believe in an intelligent agent on the balance of probabilites. Are you honest enough to accept that’s all you have also?
Didn’t I ask you to look up virtual particles before? You don’t know how the universe was created. This means you’re making up an explanation. Does that seem like something a smart person would do?
I haven’t said what created the universe. You’re saying that you have an answer, which makes you a person who says things without evidence.
This is where my earlier post about science and scientists is substantiated.
Models and opinions are not evidence, yet they are elevated to a position of authority.
God is on the table because the same (if not superior) level of argumentation can be made for the existence of an intelligent agent as for another universe.
1> Virtual particles are formed from within a quantum vacuum, hich is not nothing. Further there is no evidence that virtual particles are uncaused…sceinece is still working on that.
2> I claim to have a plausible hypothesis. So do you. Both are on the table.
I didn’t say that. You are having trouble understanding what is going on, I’ll try again.
You suggested that “scientists” said there was an imminent ice age in the 70s. This is because you believe bullshit you read without questioning it.
In fact, only a very few fringe wackos thought an ice age was imminent. The scientific consensus was never that the fringe wackos were right. Because the scientific community examined their evidence and found it to be bullshit.
If you had the tiniest shred of a desire to debate, you’d now admit that the statement you made was wrong.
But you wont. Because you’re witnessing. You’re standing on a soapbox and screaming about God. Not debating.