Evidence For God (I'd love to hear feedback)

[Deavonreye]

Thank you, Deavonreye. That's the point I was trying to make in my earlier posts. I agree that human beings' code of morality would be essentially the same if humanity had never formed a belief in God or gods, except you could perhaps argue that the history of mankind would have been more peaceful with a strictly secular code of ethics. There would have been no Inquisition, witch hunts, and possibly no Holocaust (Hitler was apparently inspired by the anti-Semitic writings of Martin Luther), and there would likely be peace in the Middle East today.

The problem with basing "objective" morals on the thought that "if God says to do it, then it's morally imperative to do it" is that 10 different people may have 10 completely different views about what God said to do. After all, the people conducting the Inquisition and the witch hunts were inspired by their interpretation of the Bible, and used it to defend their actions (and if you actually take the Old Testament laws at face value, they were justified, since numerous OT laws prescribe killing for various reasons.) Never mind the fact that Southern Baptist preachers in the 1800's were among the foremost defenders of slavery, all the while using OT verses to support their case. Given these examples of immoral things that were morally justified by the Bible, it's hard to see how the Bible actually defines objective morality.

I agree with your statement here. I watched something on the happenings in Salem, and it is clear that fanaticism can be a dangerous thing! Their "certainty of the Devil being among them" supersceded their society, and 14 people were murdered as a result.

 

[childeye]

I don't get it. Was this a quote from someone?

Regardless, I don't see what "someone eating babies" has to do with anything. As I see it, there isn't any "higher truth" other than what men have claimed, . . . but it is still from men and their minds. They must conclude what is best for the society. Death of young ones wouldn't be so, . . . . therefore laws had to be set up. It isn't perfect. Never misunderstand that point. Where you find men, you will also find error. That is ALL encompassing!

You don't get it? No man makes up Truth. It preexists. That's why there is a such thing as knowledge and ignorance. Love is the common goodness in man.

 

[Deavonreye]

Why? Why ought man to conclude what's best for the society?

What else do they have? They must decide what is best for the whole and work towards it. Again, this isn't a perfect system, but no one is.

 

[Deavonreye]

You don't get it? No man makes up Truth. It preexists. That's why there is a such thing as knowledge and ignorance. Love is the common goodness in man.

I assume that, by capatolizing "truth", you mean, "God". This thread is about that evidence, and it has yet to be promoted here. Before something can be said to "pre-exist", you must demonstrate it, else it is opinion.

 

[ivdavid]

Why ought man to conclude what's best for the society?

What else do they have?

I didn't get you. Are you saying that man ought to do good to the society because he has nothing else to do? Please clarify....

Again, I'm asking why man must look unto the good of the society - on what basis do you derive this imperative?

 

[smaller]

It is wrong to harm others because we have the capacity to consider the consequences of our actions and how they impact others. Nearly every religion and/or society has some version of the "golden rule". This idea pre-dates Christianity and Judaism by several hundred years (for example, it is included in the Code of Hammurabi in about 1800 BC). To say the concept of treating others the way one would like to be treated is impossible without God just seems to be without merit. Of course we are capable of reaching this determination without divine input.

Also, if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective (as Deavonreye mentioned), mankind had to form a code of ethics and social justice in order to survive as a species. If every person truly was only out for himself with no regard whatsoever for his fellow humans, chaos would reign and mankind would self-destruct. It is all of our best interests to get along and maintain peace. Why is God necessary for this?

God singled out and raised up an entire people precisely to deal with lawlessness and cure.

No other prior/post nation has that claim or the entirety of what was revealed in that process, though there be many prior and post pretenders.

s

 

[childeye]

I assume that, by capatolizing "truth", you mean, "God". This thread is about that evidence, and it has yet to be promoted here. Before something can be said to "pre-exist", you must demonstrate it, else it is opinion.

I use the word "Truth" with a capitol to emphasize the validity of it as in seperating it from opinion. Truth is easy to prove. 1+1 =2. Love is the common good in man, is it not?

 

[WIP]

What else do they have? They must decide what is best for the whole and work towards it. Again, this isn't a perfect system, but no one is.

Isn't this taking the assumption that humankind desires cohabitation on this planet and if so, doesn't that indicate that we are somehow different from other animal species and if so, then why?

Consider the tarantula. They live most of their lives in solitary and even to avoid each other except for one thing, to mate, and even this is a dangerous thing for the male who first must approach with extreme caution so she won't kill him and in all likelihood will be eaten by the female afterwards. Social adaptability is not necessary for survival of the species. But, we are social. Why? As a means of defense? How did we survive for X million years before we supposedly learned this trick?

 

[JustWondering]

Isn't this taking the assumption that humankind desires cohabitation on this planet and if so, doesn't that indicate that we are somehow different from other animal species and if so, then why?

I'm certainly no expert on evolution or biology, but it seems like many different animal species are social (chimpanzees, wolves, etc.). For whatever reason, this social adaptation has allowed these species to survive better than if they were isolated. Other animal species may live solitary lives, such as the tarantula, but it is an obvious observation that humans are social. But what does this have to do with the question of morality?

 

[childeye]

Isn't Love the common good in man?

 

[JustWondering]

Isn't Love the common good in man?

You keep saying that, but what exactly do you mean by that? Did Hitler show love to the Jews? Al Quaeda show love to Americans? Inquisitors show love to "heretics"? The Israelites show love to the Canaanites?

I agree that most people exhibit love in their lives, but certainly not all. I'm just wondering what you mean when you make that statement.

 

[Deavonreye]

"Love" isn't a magical term. It is a word, only. It only exists while men decide to make that determination [outside of the initial chemical component of "love" within mating terms in humans].

As for there being an "absolute truth", I'm not sure how that relates to a discussion about "evidences for god".

 

[Deavonreye]

Isn't this taking the assumption that humankind desires cohabitation on this planet and if so, doesn't that indicate that we are somehow different from other animal species and if so, then why?

Consider the tarantula. They live most of their lives in solitary and even to avoid each other except for one thing, to mate, and even this is a dangerous thing for the male who first must approach with extreme caution so she won't kill him and in all likelihood will be eaten by the female afterwards. Social adaptability is not necessary for survival of the species. But, we are social. Why? As a means of defense? How did we survive for X million years before we supposedly learned this trick?

Humans ARE a social species, thus DO desire cohabitation, and because of that, there had to be rules set up. The crux of that is . . . the human race is also inherently warlike and prone to jealous vices, and it only takes a relatively small input to create chaos. Laws try to keep people in check, but it can fail from time to time. One group desiring another's land, disliking another culture, etc. . . society can cause calamity on those outside of it. Again, as I said, it isn't perfect.

Our increase in knowledge, and [yes] even the beginnings of religious sects throughout the planet, has made us different than other social species, true. It has required us to take bigger steps to keep the society going.

All of this is fascinating, . . . but NONE of it addresses the OP. I'm not even sure how this thread got to this place.

 

[ivdavid]

Nearly every religion and/or society has some version of the "golden rule".

And Why must the golden rule be followed?
(Don't think of me as being difficult - I'm only discussing the validity of this point.)

Of course we are capable of reaching this determination without divine input.

I take it that you consider divine input to be only external - in the form of some law given by God to be recorded and preserved by man. I especially consider the inner disposition to discern such things to be an input of God too, ie He is the causative source for our moral capacity.

I haven't really given it much thought until now - but to begin somewhere, I think you are able to determine what's right and what's wrong in relation to your conscience permitting or accusing your moral beliefs. And such conscience, I believe is given of God - therein being divine input unto our moral capacity. I don't know what you consider the conscience to be.

mankind... [has] to survive as a species.

Why, I ask. Why OUGHT we to survive as a species? And if the answer is something to this effect - that it is because there IS a tendency in man to survive as a species - then that is logically fallacious. I think in this context, it does make sense that you cannot derive an OUGHT from an IS.

 

[childeye]

You keep saying that, but what exactly do you mean by that? Did Hitler show love to the Jews? Al Quaeda show love to Americans? Inquisitors show love to "heretics"? The Israelites show love to the Canaanites?

I agree that most people exhibit love in their lives, but certainly not all. I'm just wondering what you mean when you make that statement.

Love is Spirit. God is Love, and where Love is corrupt you get Hitlers. The spiritual enemy of Love corrupts people in the name of love.

 

[Deavonreye]

This society is beneficial to the species. No one person can do everything [within reason], so must rely on others. A doctor, fireman, law enforcement, farmers, etc. A family group CAN be self sufficient, but it is very difficult, and quite lonely.

 

[Deavonreye]

Love is Spirit. God is Love, and where Love is corrupt you get Hitlers. The spiritual enemy of Love corrupts people in the name of love.

I don't think we need to get into what "corrupts love" here. That is a dangerous topic, and could eventually find posts that are against ToS. That's all I'm saying about that!

 

[childeye]

=Deavonreye;568339]"Love" isn't a magical term. It is a word, only. It only exists while men decide to make that determination [outside of the initial chemical component of "love" within mating terms in humans].

Every word is only a word. But what else do I have to communicate to you that which causes us to treat each other as we would want to be treated? I am not talking about love in the sense of mating.

As for there being an "absolute truth", I'm not sure how that relates to a discussion about "evidences for god".

Because God is the absolute by which we rationalize, including you.

 

[childeye]

I don't think we need to get into what "corrupts love" here. That is a dangerous topic, and could eventually find posts that are against ToS. That's all I'm saying about that!

Talking about the powers of darkness in men is not prohibited. Indeed it is the reason for the Gospel.

 

[Deavonreye]

Every word is only a word. But what else do I have to communicate to you that which causes us to treat each other as we would want to be treated? I am not talking about love in the sense of mating.

Because God is the absolute by which we rationalize, including you.

Please give me a definition of what you see as "love".

And until you can demonstrate it, saying "god is the absolute" is only opinion. This topic is asking about evidence! And I am not rationalizing what you claim I am.