Uyi Iredia:

Of course, you didn't explain. You simply stated it.



Indeed intelligence is a broad term. But that is a facile reason for saying morality isn't based on intelligence. Consider all the more how stup1d your statement is given the definitions of intelligence below:


in·tel·li·gence
[in-tel-i-juh ns] Show IPA
noun
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3. the faculty of understanding.
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5. the gathering or distribution of information, especially secret information.

from the definitions given reasoning and logic are clearly aspects of intelligence and any attempt to dispute this is an exercise in futility. Now you've been saying humans evolved a brain but that's not the question it's the reasoning ability of the brain (which allows it to apprehend morality) that's the question. Since evolution is a physical process you should be able to detail how the brain started to evolve the intelligence required to apprehend morality. If you can't state an explanation your hypothesis is rendered useless. Therefore, answer the question instead of chanting evolution as if it is a magic wand that solves your quandary.

Uyi Iredia:

When I earlier asked what makes human being more than matter you mentioned the reasoning ability of the brain. But clearly this reasoning ability is intangible. We can't see it and it isn't tied down to any one instance. Therefore it is an abstract, intangible and contingent aspect of humans. It is contingent because it needs be expressed via the brain. We therefore must infer a necessary, non-contigent intelligence (ie God). I have explained my case. Your rebuttal fails since it merely asserts without giving reasons. Funny thing is I'm not even talking about the Christian God. I'm given a general definition of God which is shared by theism and deism.

Logicboy03:


The point is about morality is impossible without reasoning not that reasoning is impossible without intelligence. Stop twisting

Logicboy03:

Will explain below in this comment.



Thanks for remixing the conversation as usual.

You people need to be treated like children. Things explained in simple terms over and over again to you!


We evolved a brain capable of reasoning. From that reasoning ability, we devvelop our morality. Now, it is irrelevant how the brain developed that reasoning with regards to the debate about morality. Morality is based on reasoning. Whether that reasoning came from rocks or sand, the fact remains that such morality is based on reasoning and not the bible/religion. It is a product of humans that preceded the bible or religion.



Now, your question is irrelevant but I will answer. An educated guess for why/how we evolved reasoning is the adaptation to the environment. We humans are less adaptable to living in the jungle or forest than most animals. Sleeping on sand or a tree can give us rashes and other diseases. Most mammals can live on the outside with little problems. We humans probably needed an advantage over other apes who were much more adapted to the wild, hence evolving a brain capable of reason.

Furthermore, we inherited this brain from our ape ancestors who were social animals. We split from a common ancestor with monkeys. Maybe there was a need to communicate more as social animals were the most strongest and naturally selected species. Commnication is the basis for social interactions. Maybe this need coud have been another reason for evolution of such a brain capable of higher communication such as language and reason.


Now, a truly scientific reason that can be backed would be mutations from the brains of our ancestors. What I have explained before in the above two paragrapghs is an educated guess an assumption because most scientists will tell you that it is difficult to pinpopint how exactly the brain evolved reaosning










Man is more than matter. If I say that Eba is more than cassava does that mean I am saying that there is a non-phyiscal side to eba?

Man is biological also not just mere matter



The point is about morality is impossible without reasoning not that reasoning is impossible without intelligence. Stop twisting

-Intelligence is a prerequisite for reasoning and hence, morality.
-However, an intelligent person or life form can have intelligence but no morality

You have to reason out morality. The intelligence is there but the reasoning must happen to get morality.

Hitler was intelligent but a psycho[path without morality

Rats are intelligent animals but without morality







You are foolish. How dare you call factual responses "blind faith"?

Reyginus: Logicboy stop falling your hands please. How do you reason independent of intelligence?

Logicboy03:


The argument is about morality. Morality is based on logic and reasoning not intelligence. Intelligence and reasoning are two different words. Yes you have to be intelligent to reason. Reasoning and logic need intelligence to exist in the first place. I didnt say that reason exists without intelligence- I said that morality is based on logic and reasoning.


-Why is murder bad? Because it is taking another's life

That is reasonig/logic there not "intelligence". You need intelligence to reason no doubt but intelligence is not the basis of the moral point we just made- it was reason and logic

Logicboy03: A deist god has no morality or moral laws. Reasoning is tied to a physical brain.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, as usual...it is a big ask to expect you to see your folly.

Reyginus: @Logicboy.:-O:-O:-O. Lol. You're just too good.

Logicboy03:
-Why is murder bad? Because it is taking another's life

That is reasonig/logic there not "intelligence". You need intelligence to reason no doubt but intelligence is not the basis of the moral point we just made- it was reason and logic

Logicboy03:

After being thoroughly debunked, you resort to this? Not surprising

Mr_Anony:
Logicboy let's it rip again....this time with blatant circular logic.

Read the bolded again slowly. Basically, all you've said is "murder is bad because it is murder."

Is that the reason/logic you have been referring to all along? Seriously, all those years of evolution and the best you could come up with was circular logic?

Logicboy03:
We evolved a brain capable of reasoning. From that reasoning ability, we devvelop our morality. Now, it is irrelevant how the brain developed that reasoning with regards to the debate about morality. Morality is based on reasoning. Whether that reasoning came from rocks or sand, the fact remains that such morality is based on reasoning and not the bible/religion. It is a product of humans that preceded the bible or religion.

Logicboy03: Now, your question is irrelevant but I will answer. An educated guess for why/how we evolved reasoning is the adaptation to the environment. We humans are less adaptable to living in the jungle or forest than most animals. Sleeping on sand or a tree can give us rashes and other diseases. Most mammals can live on the outside with little problems. We humans probably needed an advantage over other apes who were much more adapted to the wild, hence evolving a brain capable of reason.

Furthermore, we inherited this brain from our ape ancestors who were social animals. We split from a common ancestor with monkeys. Maybe there was a need to communicate more as social animals were the most strongest and naturally selected species. Commnication is the basis for social interactions. Maybe this need coud have been another reason for evolution of such a brain capable of higher communication such as language and reason.


Now, a truly scientific reason that can be backed would be mutations from the brains of our ancestors. What I have explained before in the above two paragrapghs is an educated guess an assumption because most scientists will tell you that it is difficult to pinpopint how exactly the brain evolved reaosning

Logicboy03:


If that is what you are focusing on, you have proven that you have lost the argument!

I agree that the bold statement was circular logic but that was not the point. The point was that we use reason to shape our morality.

That circular logic there was not the crux of the argument- it was only a hasty example to explain the use of reason. It didnt matter whether a gave a water tight defense against murder or not, the point was that I put a reason for morality be it circular or not.


See how petty you have become? Focusing on an irrelevant point.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, I didn't realize that we were arguing in the first place. All I have been doing is pointing out your flawed logic. I haven't really been arguing a position.


Actually, that was the only thing worth responding to in that post. The rest was just you trying to explain how reason is different from intelligence. . . . .and failing at it.

Uyi Iredia:

And are the Bible and religion not products of human reason ? Yes, they are which actually shows that your statement is wrong. Saying it is irrelevant to explain how the brain developed reasoning wrt morality actually shows that ultimately naturalists have no basis for morality other than say there's morality.



Morality offers no apparent survival advantage. As I've even earlier pointed out it can even be detrimental to survival. So that explanation of survival fails . . . WOEFULLY. Mutations can't possibly create morality since they lack it. What is striking here is you said it is difficult to pinpoint how the brain evolved reasoning. Which is to say: Your position is difficult. That is even not the case, your position is impossible. Your answer here can be safely interpreted as an admission that atheism can't tell us how morality comes to exist. Your attempted answer to my questions are weak for the reasons given.

Uyi Iredia: Let all posters note that logicboy has FAILED to give an explanation as to how the brain's ability to apprehend morality arose naturally. Even the reasoning he postulates as a basis for morality is very clearly abstract.

Logicboy;
You people need to be treated like children. Things explained in simple terms over and over again to you!


We evolved a brain capable of reasoning. From that reasoning ability, we devvelop our morality. Now, it is irrelevant how the brain developed that reasoning with regards to the debate about morality. Morality is based on reasoning. Whether that reasoning came from rocks or sand, the fact remains that such morality is based on reasoning and not the bible/religion. It is a product of humans that preceded the bible or religion.



Now, your question is irrelevant but I will answer. An educated guess for why/how we evolved reasoning is the adaptation to the environment. We humans are less adaptable to living in the jungle or forest than most animals. Sleeping on sand or a tree can give us rashes and other diseases. Most mammals can live on the outside with little problems. We humans probably needed an advantage over other apes who were much more adapted to the wild, hence evolving a brain capable of reason.

Furthermore, we inherited this brain from our ape ancestors who were social animals. We split from a common ancestor with monkeys. Maybe there was a need to communicate more as social animals were the most strongest and naturally selected species. Commnication is the basis for social interactions. Maybe this need coud have been another reason for evolution of such a brain capable of higher communication such as language and reason.


Now, a truly scientific reason that can be backed would be mutations from the brains of our ancestors. What I have explained before in the above two paragrapghs is an educated guess an assumption because most scientists will tell you that it is difficult to pinpopint how exactly the brain evolved reaosning

Mr_Anony:
There is nothing to wriggle out from.

The question you are asking and the way you are trying to make it sound is like saying that each time a wife and husband argue and make up, they have divorced and remarried because every argument breaks at least one part of the marriage vow at the moment of quarrel.

We both know you aren't being sincere.

Logicboy03: @Uyi iradia





First bold... if the bible and religion are products of human reasoning, your whole religion and points are then useless. How you cant see that amazes
me

truthislight:

Thank you.

Seun: I don't understand why Christian apologists expect atheists to defend and explain evolution. Even if you could disprove evolution, that does not mean that we were created by the God of the bible. There are hundreds of other Gods that may have created us, and there could be a better scientific explanation than evolution that we have not yet discovered. The burden is on you to prove that we were created by the biblical God, and not on us to prove evolution. Evolution is just the only explanation that makes sense based on the evidence we have; it is not an article of faith that all atheists must uphold. I think the never-ending debate on evolution distracts from more important issues.

Logicboy03:





First bold... if the bible and religion are products of human reasoning, your whole religion and points are then useless. How you cant see that amazes
me

Logicboy03: second bold....my whole argument was that morality is partly derived from our isntinct to survive. To now tell me that morality has no apparent survival advantage is not only foolish but shows that you dont even read what your opponent writes. ....You are fool for making that statement. Goodbye.

Uyi Iredia:

And the burden is equally on the atheists to show why God doesn't exist and why his belief in evolution is valid. The debate isn't one-sided. In any case the question here is how does evolution account for the rise of morality. I f that question can't be answered I wonder why you should see any credibility in the theory.

Uyi Iredia:

Typical of you. Asserting without explaining. HOW is it useless ?

Uyi Iredia:
But clearly morality doesn't help ourt bodily functions. It doesn't make one all the more healthier and unless you can show how it helps survival I should think you asinine.

Logicboy03:
Another example would be survival. Naturally, our survival is our basic animalistic instinct. We avoid predators and haards that would kill us. Instinctively, a dog would recoil at the sight of fire or a mouse would recoil at the sight of a predator. We also kill other to survive. We kill agressors and predators or we kill prey to eat. We frame many decisions around our survival. We dont do certain things because it will kill us on the lond eg drug overdose or addiction.


Another example would be murder. While it is a natural instincts to kill competitors or aggressors, natural selection favours groups which share and are cohisve. Natural selection favours sharers and co-operation within groups or society. In groups, animals can kill more prey and ward off predators. Natural selection suppiorts those groups who work together for the benefits of the group.

Logicboy03:


Wait, so you agree that you were looking for cheap points?

You are fast losing credibility.

As for reasoning and intelligence, you have no points that is why you were shut up. They have different meanings and usage despite intelligence being necessary for reasoning.

You said that I failed but couldnt point how. mtchew

Logicboy03:


First bold... if the bible and religion are products of human reasoning, your whole religion and points are then useless. How you cant see that amazes
me

Seun: I don't understand why Christian apologists expect atheists to defend and explain evolution. Even if you could disprove evolution, that does not mean that we were created by the God of the bible. There are hundreds of other Gods that may have created us, and there could be a better scientific explanation than evolution that we have not yet discovered. The burden is on you to prove that we were created by the biblical God, and not on us to prove evolution. Evolution is just the only explanation that makes sense based on the evidence we have; it is not an article of faith that all atheists must uphold. I think the never-ending debate on evolution distracts from more important issues.

musKeeto:
Nothing new here. The usual remixing we've come to expect from you. Well, predictability is being consistent.

Mr_Anony:
If the bible is human reasoning as Uyi claims, on what grounds then do you discredit it seeing that all along you have been championing the claim that morality is from human reasoning? You can't have it both ways my friend. Why is one set of human reasoning wrong and yours right?

Mr_Anony: Tell us exactly how intelligence found it's way into unintelligent matter.