TenQ:

Can you please show the Evidence to prove that conscience EVOLVED and from what?

LOL!

TenQ:

Every moral law of God has and will be violated by man.
Even as a Christian, we many times violate God's laws!

midnight378:


LOL
No one has to show you that .
"Conscience" is nothing but "learned behaviors", (which as you were told yesterday even by all the major religious groups, is "formed" by environment) and you have no evidence there is anything called "conscience" other than learned behaviors and learned standards .
Can you please take Anthropology 101 and actually learn the BASICS of how cultures teach their children about what are proper behaviors for their members. Can you also describe for us what allowed your god-given consciences to permit child sacrifice in the many cultures that practiced it .
You're not really this stupid are you ?

TenQ:

Is your argument that complexity is not relative!?

TenQ:

Is your argument that complexity is not relative!?

There are many theories on how to create matter from nothing – especially as quantum physicists have tried to better understand the Big Bang and what could have caused it. We know that colliding two particles in empty space can sometimes cause additional particles to emerge. There are even theories that a strong enough electromagnetic field could create matter and antimatter out of nothing itself.

But, managing to do any of these things has always seemed impossible. Still, that hasn’t stopped scientists from trying, and now, that research seems to have paid off. As Big Think reports, in early 2022, a group of researchers created strong enough electric fields in their laboratory to level the unique properties of a material known as graphene.

With these fields, the researchers were able to enable the spontaneous creation of particle-antiparticle pairs from nothing at all. This proved that creating matter from nothing is indeed possible, a theory first proposed by Julian Schwinger, one of the founders of quantum field theory. And with that knowledge, we can hopefully better understand how the universe makes something from nothing.

Tamaratonye1:
At your discretion -

You awaken tomorrow to find headlines around the world: Science has definitively proven that no god exists - anywhere in the universe. All the religious leaders concur.

How would your life be different?

Would you lose your job?

What is it that a god adds that cannot be lived without?

Tamaratonye1:

Okay. Then presumably you can demonstrate that objective morals would not exist in the absence of God. If you have and I missed it, please link me.

Tamaratonye1:

This is chronic with respect to your posts. Everyone but you doesn't get it. An objective observer might suggest you get a mirror.

Tamaratonye1:

And yet that's what we've been doing ever since we stopped letting the churches write our laws.

Tamaratonye1:

SCIENTISTS CREATE MATTER FROM NOTHING IN GROUNDBREAKING EXPERIMENT

Endtimer:


So what? What you’re saying is that most people do what everyone else does. What I’m saying is that it isn’t warranted whether or not the people in question are aware.

You are simply saying that in the absence of your hypothetical church-laws, people (due to ignorance) would continue to act properly. I’m asking why they should. Saying that they ignorantly will is a cop-out. I’ll restate the question: if God doesn’t exist, why should anyone do the right thing?

Hopefully, you won’t say, “because we’ll throw them in jail otherwise”. The question would become: why should we throw them in jail? If you say, “because killing people (as an example) is wrong”; the question becomes: why is it wrong? If you say, “it just is”; the question becomes: why? That’s enough prediction from me, but just in case you say that we just know what is good and what isn’t you’d have created the basis for rationalization of whatever anyone does based on their subjective knowledge of good and bad.

Hopefully you see why I have to continue explaining myself.

Endtimer:


This much is self-evident or properly basic.

Endtimer:


This much is self-evident or properly basic. I’ll have to redirect that back to you and ask that you explain how objective morals can exist authoritatively without God.

chryssanthe:

Morals change from century to century and from culture to culture. .

Tamaratonye1:
SCIENTISTS CREATE MATTER FROM NOTHING IN GROUNDBREAKING EXPERIMENT

Endtimer:


This much is self-evident or properly basic. I’ll have to redirect that back to you and ask that you explain how objective morals can exist authoritatively without God.

Endtimer:


So what? What you’re saying is that most people do what everyone else does. What I’m saying is that it isn’t warranted whether or not the people in question are aware.

You are simply saying that in the absence of your hypothetical church-laws, people (due to ignorance) would continue to act properly. I’m asking why they should. Saying that they ignorantly will is a cop-out. I’ll restate the question: if God doesn’t exist, why should anyone do the right thing?

Hopefully, you won’t say, “because we’ll throw them in jail otherwise”. The question would become: why should we throw them in jail? If you say, “because killing people (as an example) is wrong”; the question becomes: why is it wrong? If you say, “it just is”; the question becomes: why? That’s enough prediction from me, but just in case you say that we just know what is good and what isn’t you’d have created the basis for rationalization of whatever anyone does based on their subjective knowledge of good and bad.

Hopefully you see why I have to continue explaining myself.

afficionado7:



I'm an agnostic with a bias for philosophical taoism, although my belief or unbelief is always in flux- I'm constantly learning. So this question doesn't apply to me.

What I've deduced though is that belief in a god is a crutch, much like using drugs, or being an alcoholic. It serves an emotional purpose for the theist, and that's why even the most intelligent individuals can be fervent adherents. It's an emotional salve.

PS: OP I salute your clarity of expression. You have a way with words.

Tamaratonye1:
Concerning the "Something from Nothing" canard, this is a much better article to refer to: ...

Now, I should have clarified this earlier when I posted the initial article. Please make no mistake, the claim that something emerged from "nothing" isn't simply misleading, [b]it's as wrong as it's possible to get. What's going on here is called the Schwinger Effect, and it involves the production of electron-... The particles being produced are NOT being produced from nothing...

Tamaratonye1:

Not much use then, are they, that they're so consistently violated. Why do you suppose that is? Lack of enforcement? Oh, there's threat of retribution, but no follow through.

Tamaratonye1:

Adherence to biblical moral injunctions is strictly voluntary. And therefore seldom complied with.

Tamaratonye1:
Concerning the "Something from Nothing" canard, this is a much better article to refer to: 70-year-old quantum prediction comes true, as something is created from nothing

Now, I should have clarified this earlier when I posted the initial article. Please make no mistake, the claim that something emerged from "nothing" isn't simply misleading, it's as wrong as it's possible to get. What's going on here is called the Schwinger Effect, and it involves the production of electron-positron pairs in absurdly powerful electrical fields. Those are electrical fields so intense that we simply can't produce them. You'd need something like a neutron star for those types of energies. The particles being produced are NOT being produced from nothing. The energy needed to create them is drawn from the electrical field in accordance with Einstein's famous equation. So cool beans, energy is being converted into matter, but something is not coming from nothing.

In this case the researchers didn't even do that. They didn't produce particle-antiparticle pairs because, as mentioned, that takes Earth-shattering amounts of energy. Literally. What they observed was the spontaneous production of electrons and electron holes in doped graphene sheets under electrical fields that, while intense, can be generated relatively simply in most physics labs. They didn't actually produce any particles, they just induced quantum tunnelling of electrons between adjacent graphene sheets. That isn't to belittle their work. It's an elegant analogue of the Schwinger effect using practical energies that must have taken some serious skull sweat to figure out. Impressive, given that it was predicted that we'd never observe this effect at all.

By contrast, the pop sci writers who have misinterpreted and misrepresented their work should have their teeth filed off on concrete for their crimes against rational thought, basic decency, and scientific literacy in general.

Tamaratonye1:

Because. We. Want. To.

It's called empathy. Its exact origins are unknown but it exists in many species, not just in humans. My guess is that it's partially derived from early childhood socialization, partially from evolution. TL;DR version: If you don't care about others they won't go out of their way to assist you, and this decreases your survival prospects.

I'm happy when others are safe, happy and have their basic needs taken care of. I'm unhappy when others are hungry, homeless, injured or in mortal danger. It really is that simple, Endtimer.

---

21 years ago a bunch of Saudi Arabians, acting on instructions from god, flew 3 hijacked airliners full of passengers into large buildings full of occupants, and would have done the same with a 4th airliner but were overpowered by a bunch of people who had different ideas about what constituted "the right thing".

I suspect you might say those Saudi Arabians were taking instructions from the wrong god. Yet, compared to your god, the god that issued those instructions was relatively merciful in that the suffering inflicted was far less than the suffering inflicted on innocents in the bible.

The fact that you can't comprehend why someone would act "rightly" unless prodded by some god makes you a menace, and someone who should not be allowed to roam freely at large in society. You have no restraints, and will willingly and perhaps even joyfully shoot up a saloon, or burn down a clinic, or commit some heinous piece of mayhem because you think your god has instructed you to do so, exactly as this god of yours has instructed others to do.

Dtruthspeaker:


Morals do not change. It is the people who change by disobeying the morals as they exercise their power to obey and disobey.

Oponu. Ode jatijati. You are not an authority on this discussion . Your baseless claims have no weight on the truth scale no matter how many times you regurgitate it.

Bet you never heard this statement of Law (Morals)

"A crime does not cease to be a crime simply because it's offenders have increased" eg like the crime of adultery.

Chai. How utterly ignorant of you. This doesn't in any way lead to the conclusion that morals do not change over time, only that the number of offenders is not directly related to morals. Lol, is this best you could come up with? Damn, this is serious. Hope they aren't other rétards spawned by your low hygiene mother, we should get her labias sewn up before she drops another bastard like you on us.

You are just an ignorant dullard who doesn't want to accept that he is out of his depth on this particular topic. You are just here shovelling steaming heaps of bullshit from the chief priest of your church all over the place. No original thought at all, grammatical word choices and phrasings of an adolescent (at best), and the self-righteousness of a 6 year old who thinks he has a crushing argument. Product of an Absentee father, perhaps? Or your mother just went on a banging spree without even exchanging first names? Takes failures to produce your type, seriously.

Shame you no get. Pride: zero. Human dignity: zero. Self-respect: zero. You go to bed every night sucking the dick of a Jewish corpse in your dreams.

Dtruthspeaker:


There is follow through, but because God's Methods is not like you and all men's own which speedily attack breaches because you are weak and have expiration dates, you are not able to understand plus of course, you know that with each passing day a crime is left unpunished, so does the punishment (interest) for that crime also increase with the passage of time.

Which is why you are complaining about a follow through.



Which is the value of a human being over a robot.

And the value of Reward. Good reward for the good doing and bad reward for the bad doing.

You missed your English class half the time your grandpa was chasing your mom out to go look for the aimless bottom dog who popped her up . This is what happens when your mother's Vjay has got more piercings than a needle cushion. If your mum wasn't a greedy tárrt, she would have stuck to anal and save us all from witnessing the replica of your father's inferior DNA and stall the pollution of the cyber environment with an unwanted child left to street-feed.

Endtimer:


Since I've come to understand your point, I can't say this discussion has been fruitless; painful perhaps, but far from fruitless. I'll use your post to illustrate something to someone who thinks. Wilgrea7, this woman has demonstrated exactly what we've been talking about for a while now, so I'm going to demonstrate the untenability of Godless morality using her ideas as a foil. That way something sensible can result from my interaction with her and perhaps objective third parties can come to see what I'm talking about.

She starts her reply by indicating that morality is sourced from individual wants. She quickly refutes herself, but I'll stick to debunking her claims for now (you might want to read the quoted text in its entirety for context). If morals really did come from what people want, then the Holocaust would certainly be the greatest moral accomplishment in the history of the world as it fulfilled Hitler's desires admirably.

She undoes herself by following her first point with a short paragraph where she struggles to demonstrate innate human goodness through evolutionary appeal. I'm not one to reference Richard Dawkins but she might want to read The Selfish Gene. Contrary to her Powerpuff Girls influenced fantasy, humans are demonstrably bad. We've been at war throughout our existence and when we take time off from that, it's to enjoy the spoils of battles won: captive women, slaves, stolen goods and property. If her argument here is that we naturally manifest (what her Christianity-influenced mind considers) moral sentiment it is only because we live in a civilization only 3% as old as the time we've spent on this earth. Furthermore, her point about survival being contingent on empathy is as ludicrous as it is absurd. Empathy is hardly an important trait in determining the survival of a species; not to mention that survival cannot be seen as determinant of morality because it often involves killing (another thing most Christian-influenced atheist minds consider bad). If that was the case anything required for survival (essentially doing your part in perpetuating your genetic heritage) would be moral. Things like killing, stealing, rape, theft, and most of the other things constitutions ban would be alright depending on the situation.

Next, is another short paragraph where she states that her happiness about the wellbeing of others is enough to bring about morality. If people should do good things only because they make us happy, then the same can be said about bad things. No sensible person can honestly believe this (as we'll see at the end of her post). Once again she fails to grasp that some people do not think like she does and solipsistically declares that people will be good little boys and behave in the absence of objective morals because it makes her happy to see others happy. It also made Nazis happy to throw people in gas chambers and Bin Laden happy when the second plane hit the building. Furthermore, no adult should believe that goodness is contingent on our happiness because happiness is a flimsy emotion. One moment we wish to be alone in the world and the next to be surrounded by friends and family. Emotional transience would render all morals super-arbitrary as they not only change when one person's happiness fades but were never even in place as different people are made happy by different things. Some people would be happy if we all died so they could claim our land.

She says something about Saudi's.

Then, she assumes the ironic position of the holier-than-thou atheist by borrowing my morals and attacking me for believing in a God that commands the "suffering of innocents"; all this despite having stated her disbelief in objective morality elsewhere. How can I be bad, if good and bad are matters of personal taste. Isn't that just her isolated, valueless opinion.

Finally, she proves my point by accusing me of evil and demanding my immediate arrest and imprisonment without the possibility of bail and without a fair trial, all because I, the Christian, am a mass shooter and arsonist (I'm as shocked as you are, as I was just informed). Her last paragraph is proof of what I've been saying all along: she wants me locked up for not believing what she believes. The significance of this is that atheist morality is dependent on personal opinion. Our laws are codified morals and would-be tyrants would have me (and all other believers) locked up for believing a logically unassailable position (moral contingence on deity). Ironically, from her post history she feels oppressed as an atheist in Nigeria, but finds it within herself to call for the arrest of someone for believing in God. I'm curious as to whose morals would inevitably lead to totalitarianism as they aren't morals at all; just what she woke up feeling.

Sorry for the long text. I'm tired so I'll post my proposed solution to Christian antinomianism some other day. Happy independence.

Dtruthspeaker:


Morals do not change. It is the people who change by disobeying the morals as they exercise their power to obey and disobey.

Bet you never heard this statement of Law (Morals)

"A crime does not cease to be a crime simply because it's offenders have increased" eg like the crime of adultery.

Endtimer:


Since I've come to understand your point, I can't say this discussion has been fruitless; painful perhaps, but far from fruitless. I'll use your post to illustrate something to someone who thinks. Wilgrea7, this woman has demonstrated exactly what we've been talking about for a while now, so I'm going to demonstrate the untenability of Godless morality using her ideas as a foil. That way something sensible can result from my interaction with her and perhaps objective third parties can come to see what I'm talking about.

She starts her reply by indicating that morality is sourced from individual wants. She quickly refutes herself, but I'll stick to debunking her claims for now (you might want to read the quoted text in its entirety for context). If morals really did come from what people want, then the Holocaust would certainly be the greatest moral accomplishment in the history of the world as it fulfilled Hitler's desires admirably.

She undoes herself by following her first point with a short paragraph where she struggles to demonstrate innate human goodness through evolutionary appeal. I'm not one to reference Richard Dawkins but she might want to read The Selfish Gene. Contrary to her Powerpuff Girls influenced fantasy, humans are demonstrably bad. We've been at war throughout our existence and when we take time off from that, it's to enjoy the spoils of battles won: captive women, slaves, stolen goods and property. If her argument here is that we naturally manifest (what her Christianity-influenced mind considers) moral sentiment it is only because we live in a civilization only 3% as old as the time we've spent on this earth. Furthermore, her point about survival being contingent on empathy is as ludicrous as it is absurd. Empathy is hardly an important trait in determining the survival of a species; not to mention that survival cannot be seen as determinant of morality because it often involves killing (another thing most Christian-influenced atheist minds consider bad). If that was the case anything required for survival (essentially doing your part in perpetuating your genetic heritage) would be moral. Things like killing, stealing, rape, theft, and most of the other things constitutions ban would be alright depending on the situation.

Next, is another short paragraph where she states that her happiness about the wellbeing of others is enough to bring about morality. If people should do good things only because they make us happy, then the same can be said about bad things. No sensible person can honestly believe this (as we'll see at the end of her post). Once again she fails to grasp that some people do not think like she does and solipsistically declares that people will be good little boys and behave in the absence of objective morals because it makes her happy to see others happy. It also made Nazis happy to throw people in gas chambers and Bin Laden happy when the second plane hit the building. Furthermore, no adult should believe that goodness is contingent on our happiness because happiness is a flimsy emotion. One moment we wish to be alone in the world and the next to be surrounded by friends and family. Emotional transience would render all morals super-arbitrary as they not only change when one person's happiness fades but were never even in place as different people are made happy by different things. Some people would be happy if we all died so they could claim our land.

She says something about Saudi's.

Then, she assumes the ironic position of the holier-than-thou atheist by borrowing my morals and attacking me for believing in a God that commands the "suffering of innocents"; all this despite having stated her disbelief in objective morality elsewhere. How can I be bad, if good and bad are matters of personal taste. Isn't that just her isolated, valueless opinion.

Finally, she proves my point by accusing me of evil and demanding my immediate arrest and imprisonment without the possibility of bail and without a fair trial, all because I, the Christian, am a mass shooter and arsonist (I'm as shocked as you are, as I was just informed). Her last paragraph is proof of what I've been saying all along: she wants me locked up for not believing what she believes. The significance of this is that atheist morality is dependent on personal opinion. Our laws are codified morals and would-be tyrants would have me (and all other believers) locked up for believing a logically unassailable position (moral contingence on deity). Ironically, from her post history she feels oppressed as an atheist in Nigeria, but finds it within herself to call for the arrest of someone for believing in God. I'm curious as to whose morals would inevitably lead to totalitarianism as they aren't morals at all; just what she woke up feeling.

Sorry for the long text. I'm tired so I'll post my proposed solution to Christian antinomianism some other day. Happy independence.

Endtimer:


Since I've come to understand your point, I can't say this discussion has been fruitless; painful perhaps, but far from fruitless. I'll use your post to illustrate something to someone who thinks. Wilgrea7, this woman has demonstrated exactly what we've been talking about for a while now, so I'm going to demonstrate the untenability of Godless morality using her ideas as a foil. That way something sensible can result from my interaction with her and perhaps objective third parties can come to see what I'm talking about.

She starts her reply by indicating that morality is sourced from individual wants. She quickly refutes herself, but I'll stick to debunking her claims for now (you might want to read the quoted text in its entirety for context). If morals really did come from what people want, then the Holocaust would certainly be the greatest moral accomplishment in the history of the world as it fulfilled Hitler's desires admirably.

She undoes herself by following her first point with a short paragraph where she struggles to demonstrate innate human goodness through evolutionary appeal. I'm not one to reference Richard Dawkins but she might want to read The Selfish Gene. Contrary to her Powerpuff Girls influenced fantasy, humans are demonstrably bad. We've been at war throughout our existence and when we take time off from that, it's to enjoy the spoils of battles won: captive women, slaves, stolen goods and property. If her argument here is that we naturally manifest (what her Christianity-influenced mind considers) moral sentiment it is only because we live in a civilization only 3% as old as the time we've spent on this earth. Furthermore, her point about survival being contingent on empathy is as ludicrous as it is absurd. Empathy is hardly an important trait in determining the survival of a species; not to mention that survival cannot be seen as determinant of morality because it often involves killing (another thing most Christian-influenced atheist minds consider bad). If that was the case anything required for survival (essentially doing your part in perpetuating your genetic heritage) would be moral. Things like killing, stealing, rape, theft, and most of the other things constitutions ban would be alright depending on the situation.

Next, is another short paragraph where she states that her happiness about the wellbeing of others is enough to bring about morality. If people should do good things only because they make us happy, then the same can be said about bad things. No sensible person can honestly believe this (as we'll see at the end of her post). Once again she fails to grasp that some people do not think like she does and solipsistically declares that people will be good little boys and behave in the absence of objective morals because it makes her happy to see others happy. It also made Nazis happy to throw people in gas chambers and Bin Laden happy when the second plane hit the building. Furthermore, no adult should believe that goodness is contingent on our happiness because happiness is a flimsy emotion. One moment we wish to be alone in the world and the next to be surrounded by friends and family. Emotional transience would render all morals super-arbitrary as they not only change when one person's happiness fades but were never even in place as different people are made happy by different things. Some people would be happy if we all died so they could claim our land.

She says something about Saudi's.

Then, she assumes the ironic position of the holier-than-thou atheist by borrowing my morals and attacking me for believing in a God that commands the "suffering of innocents"; all this despite having stated her disbelief in objective morality elsewhere. How can I be bad, if good and bad are matters of personal taste. Isn't that just her isolated, valueless opinion.

Finally, she proves my point by accusing me of evil and demanding my immediate arrest and imprisonment without the possibility of bail and without a fair trial, all because I, the Christian, am a mass shooter and arsonist (I'm as shocked as you are, as I was just informed). Her last paragraph is proof of what I've been saying all along: she wants me locked up for not believing what she believes. The significance of this is that atheist morality is dependent on personal opinion. Our laws are codified morals and would-be tyrants would have me (and all other believers) locked up for believing a logically unassailable position (moral contingence on deity). Ironically, from her post history she feels oppressed as an atheist in Nigeria, but finds it within herself to call for the arrest of someone for believing in God. I'm curious as to whose morals would inevitably lead to totalitarianism as they aren't morals at all; just what she woke up feeling.

Sorry for the long text. I'm tired so I'll post my proposed solution to Christian antinomianism some other day. Happy independence.

Endtimer:


So what? What you’re saying is that most people do what everyone else does. What I’m saying is that it isn’t warranted whether or not the people in question are aware.

You are simply saying that in the absence of your hypothetical church-laws, people (due to ignorance) would continue to act properly. I’m asking why they should. Saying that they ignorantly will is a cop-out. I’ll restate the question: if God doesn’t exist, why should anyone do the right thing?

Hopefully, you won’t say, “because we’ll throw them in jail otherwise”. The question would become: why should we throw them in jail? If you say, “because killing people (as an example) is wrong”; the question becomes: why is it wrong? If you say, “it just is”; the question becomes: why? That’s enough prediction from me, but just in case you say that we just know what is good and what isn’t you’d have created the basis for rationalization of whatever anyone does based on their subjective knowledge of good and bad.

Hopefully you see why I have to continue explaining myself.