The evolution of flight is discussed at length at:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html

It is most reasonable to hypothesize that adaptations leading to flight were useful in and of themselves - obviously, for instance, and adaptation that would allow an animal to leap or glide longer distances could have a selective advantage.

The evolution of the mammalian eye http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html is an excellent example. Examples of the theorized intermediate stages exist today, and the imperfections in the vision system, such as the blind spot, are better explained by evolution than by some "grand design."

<small>[ February 05, 2005, 06:44 AM: Message edited by: Nellie2 ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by LINY:
<strong>"Here," I am assuming--please correct me if I'm not on the right track--is in a "modern" society. Our learning abilities, again, in our society, do not differntiate this--regardless, as you correctly insinuated, of religious or non-religious beliefs. BUT, there are some "twisted" societies in the world that DO accept pain, and, not necessarily "like" it, but is a part of their society. Even our own society--the most basic of pain--childbirth.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There are indeed twisted micro-societies with social mores or customs quite unacceptable to the planet at large, yet (seemingly) acceptable to them, or more specifically, portions of them. Two examples that come to mind are the polygamists in the US who claim divine guidance and the very small population of the HMS Bounty decendants on Pitcarin who are currently in the throes of a sexual abuse scandal wherein literally half of the male population has apparently been doing awful things to young girls and women there for decades. This has been explained by some there as "normal."

I don't know that childbirth is a good "pain" example in our context here - although I'm a guy, I've witnessed it and although I can't prove it exists in a laboratory I believe it does based on the abundance of observations and analyses in addition to my own. (This latter clause was for the benefit of 'ol 2long. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) Childbirth is a pain investment for a later payoff - just like the "pain" of exercising has a higher "good."

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">...no point of reference or basis or "baseline" moral starting point exists to gauge or measure against...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This is EXACTLY the point I'm trying to make--it doesn't make a bit of difference where we are *NOW*--the difference is *HOW* we got to the point where we are now.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I have no idea how we got to this point now. I suspect our (homo sapiens) social structure evolved along with our brains to apply that which we learned. When you got bonked on the head by a caveman club, it didn't feel good. Cause and effect. Hmmmm, maybe I shouldn't do that to this other hairy cavemate because it won't feel good to him, either.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Why can't my baseline be just as good as any "authoritarian" established baseline?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">IMO, the answer is it can be--for you. (And I know that this is really what started this thread--you were insulted, so to speak, for the transference, if you will, of beliefs, or appearance that FH mentioned "God." I'm really not sure at this point what the exact quote was anymore!)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The inference was that being a humanist equated to an inability of knowing right from wrong. Please see the originating post on this thread and tell me if you think I read too much into it?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In many cases - as can be plainly seen by the number of "Christian" WSs we see on this board - mine's a fair sight better, hmmmmm? If a person with a moral code the basis of which is gold plated Christian, Islam, whatever - chooses to be a WS - what good has it done?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Good question. But I'm pretty sure the percentage of WS's in Christians is the same as it is for Islams as it is the same for Jews as it is the same for atheists as it is the same for agnostics and on. There are just far less fewer atheists that we hear of infidelity from just there are just far fewer atheists. So, to say that your moral code is "better is quite pretentious and condescending--unless it was just the WAT humour that I'm missing. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What I was trying to say was that my moral code is obviously better than a WS's in the act. This includes all WSs including those with moral codes from a higher authority. Yes, I've been flamed here numerous times in the past for claiming to be a better person than an active WS and for judging others. I still claim it and I make no apologies for this. Isn't it intuitive that any person who is violating accepted social behavior is a lesser person for that moment? Relatively speaking? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ultimately, a Christian should be reminding himself, "Thou shalt not judge..." And the Agnostic, "Thou shalt think about it logically and say, 'Nah--NO WAY!'" And the atheist, "Thou shalt not think about it at all!" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The athiests I have known do a lot of thinking. They had to to get to where they are. In fact, I would aggressively argue that they have done a LOT more thinking than someone who blindly accepted that which they were told or were instructed to believe. This gets back to my "ownership" of my belief system. It has more worth to me than someone else's (including a higher authority) that I may have been "forced" to accept. This doesn't mean mine is by default very different.

I have been accused of being an athiest - and maybe I am to some because my beliefs are not mainstream and I keep the details to myself. I guarantee you that I think about it a lot. I question my belief structure every day. I'm not sure I have it figured out quite yet. One thing I have figured out for sure is that I am not a religious hypocrit! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

BTW, where's the "Intelligent Design" in childbirth pain?

WAT

<small>[ February 05, 2005, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: worthatry ]</small>

The athiests I have known do a lot of thinking. They had to to get to where they are. In fact, I would aggressively argue that they have done a LOT more thinking than someone who blindly accepted that which they were told or were instructed to believe. This gets back to my "ownership" of my belief system. It has more worth to me than someone else's (including a higher authority) that I may have been "forced" to accept. This doesn't mean mine is by default very different.

I agree with this statement by WAT, based on the scientists and athiests I have known in my life. My brother and my dad (who did study four years to be a minister before joining the service, he also had a strong educational background in chemistry, but died an athiest).

My older brother (a physicist and athiest) is one of the most ethical men I know, thinks way too much, like it sounds like WAT does. I would like to shake his head sometimes and tell him to STOP thinking and examining his beliefs all the time.

He can't help it I guess, being a scientist and all.

LINY:

"Science is basically a relidion itself. They just don't "worship" a particular "being." They worship "being.""

No, science is a tool, a way of figuring stuff out. So is religion, in a sense. ScienTISTS may be religious about their science, but if they are they aren't being "pure" about it.

And as Carl Sagan also aptly put it: "In science, the only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths."

An important aspect of the scientific method that is often misunders2d, is that scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable. Think about it.

-ol' 2long

2Long - groan.....!!!

Please don't tell me that we want to go off on the "evolution vs. creation" tangent!?!

Very time consuming and ultimately irrelevant if one doesn't accept the existence of God, because a belief one way or the other doesn't have a thing to do with Salvation. All of these issues begin and end with, "is Jesus Christ who he says he is?" If not, the rest is irrelevant. Hold any belief you desire and they are all "equally as good" and "equally as valid" or invalid.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Posted by MelodyLane

Originally posted by ForeverHers:


To Melody Lane's point; "Murder (according to "Man" is not always murder) is and always will be immoral." In many Islamic countries the concept of, and practice of, "Honor Killings" is accepted, practiced as normal, and is considered by many to be "moral," whereas not doing the killing is considered to be immoral.

But they do not define this as murder. They believe that killing the "infidel" is an act of justice. But, they do believe that murder is wrong. [as they define it]If they thought murder was ok, they would just call it murder; they wouldn't bother to rationalize it. They simply misdefine the meaning of murder in order to justify their acts. But, they DO know that murder is wrong.

NOW....even though I say this, I am NOT saying that murder is wrong simply because society [some] views it as such. Man does not determine right and wrong, he knows it. My point is that he discovers an existing set of moral absolutes that already exists; that God imprinted on his soul. Although some may deny it, men know right from wrong. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">(** Misunderstanding of what “Honor Killings” are **)

Melody Lane, this concept of “honor killings” is primarily an Islamic idea (although other cultures have done similar things). I’m not sure from the way you responded if you understand what “honor killings” means. In a nutshell it gives the “right” to the Father to kill anyone in his family, usually women, who HE thinks has “besmirched” the “family honor” in some way. This can, and has, included daughters who were raped. Protecting this concept of “family honor” places the subjective interpretation of that, “besmirches family honor,” in the hands of the father and makes it “right” based solely upon the fact that HE is the father and has the right to do whatever he feels is right to “protect that honor,” including killing a child who he thinks has, in some way, intentionally or not, brought “shame” upon him (and by extension, the family). To say that it’s a Patriarchal dominance, forced servitude of all others under him, and subjective to his feelings is a Gross Understatement. What it comes down to is NOT a moral code, it comes down to Individual Personal Choice for the Advancement of the Individual’s Personal Wants and Desires as being SUPERIOR to any other code.

So your statement is correct: “NOW....even though I say this, I am NOT saying that murder is wrong simply because society [some] views it as such. Man does not determine right and wrong, he knows it. My point is that he discovers an existing set of moral absolutes that already exists; that God imprinted on his soul. Although some may deny it, men know right from wrong.”

Amen.

Bob:

"It is SUCH that requires HUGE acts of faith of evolutionists at least the equal of any creation theory IMO."

I've never found making sense of evolution requries any faith at all. I'm a geologist, and the evidence is out there.

Please don't use the term "theory" in association with creationism, though. It's not even a hypothesis, because its proponents wouldn't even dream of allowing it 2 be questioned. Evolution isn't a theory either. It's a fact. It happened. Darwin's Origin of Species is a theory (that started out as a hypothesis) 2 explain the observation that species evolved over time. Stephen J Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium" is also a theory 2 explain the observation.

"I was an evolutionist until my mid twenties by the way."

I've never been one. It's not something 2 build a "belief system" around. It's an interesting (and useful) fact of the evolution of the planet we live on.

"I became uncomfortable with the narrow minded faith required to fill the huge gaps in logic required to make the theory of evolution become the theory of all life."

You lost me here. I don't consider myself (or most people knowledgeable about evolutionary theories) 2 be narrow minded at all. As for evolution being the theory of all life: What do you mean? All aspects of life? Of course it's not. That isn't its purpose.

Nellie's links 2 the evoltion of flight are excellent, so I don't need 2 repeat any of it here.

-ol' 2long

by Nellie2 :

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> The website that stated that if you believe in evolution you must therefore believe that whatever you feel like doing is right CAN be called rubbish. - I do not think the poster was calling it rubbish because it was religious, but because it made that preposterous statement. I am sure you are well aware that there are MANY people who believe in both evolution and in god, and saying that one precludes the other is ridiculous. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Nellie, you have the opinion that it was a “preposterous statement,” but that doesn’t make it “untrue.” It may well be “preposterous,” as I am sure that it is to many who reject God and Creation as the “reason” we are all here. For you to make a statement like “saying one precludes the other is ridiculous” is a “judgment” on your part. You are entitled to have such an opinion, but that does not automatically confer “rightness” to that opinion. While I’d prefer not to go off on the tangent of “evolution” versus “creation,” I can tell you that * I * believe (have the opinion) that the reverse is true. I think that those who believe in evolution as the “origin of life” are wrong. My position is based upon two things, neither of which can be “proven” by the “scientific method.” First, I believe in Jesus Christ and God as the Creator of Heaven and Earth and all that is in it. Second, I believe that “life begets life” and evolution is excluded as a “foundational principle.” With respect to those who you refer to, who try to “straddle the fence” and be “politically correct,” and propose that “life” was “kick-started” by God and then left up to chance to continue the process, I am of the opinion that they remove the “authority of God” and replace it with “luck.” Trying to “prove” by the scientific method either creationism or evolution is impossible, but one thing IS certain….LIFE could only have come about by ONE way or the OTHER, but not both.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Kohlberg came to believe that Stage 6 was merely theoretical, but I suspect that he would have agreed that Jesus had at least Stage 5 of moral development. Kohlberg's theory depends on cognitive development and psychological constructs rather than requiring a religious basis.

I believe that religously based moral teachings were a product of cognitively-based moral development. There may or may not be a few moral beliefs that are "universal" in all cultures, but if there, that in no way implies that they are god-given. There are lots of behaviors that are pretty much universal, and which have a selective advantage - such as a mother's feeding her baby when it might drain her resources.

We ARE intelligent animals - there is no "just" about it - there is nothing more exciting or awe-inspiring to me than studying evolutionary biology. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Nellie, the point is that I don’t care what Kohlberg “came to believe” as it is based solely upon “human reason” and an attempt to “codify” CHOICES that people make, societal rules and regulations for social order, not to develop a “moral code” that is applicable to humans everywhere. Without God, I understand what he is trying to do, to explain why people make some choices and why some choices would be “superior” to others. But he continues to lack the “authority” that would be needed to “impose” those standards on everyone regardless of what they may or may not personally choose to do.

Understand that groups of people will, most often, develop a set of “rules and regulations” that you can call a “moral code” for their group. They impose their set of rules upon “outsiders” regardless of whether or not the “outsiders” agree with them. They set themselves up as the “authority” and whatever they have chosen as their “standards” as being the only “right” code for everyone. The appropriate “free will choice” for themselves, but then turn right around and deny it to everyone else.

“Society” may be “orderly” in this respect, but it doesn’t have to be “good” or “morally good.”

We continue to come back to my original question….. “by what (or who’s) AUTHORITY are a set of moral standards put forth that apply to ALL humans everywhere and everywhen?” The corollary to that question is “what gave that moral code the right to be applied to everyone regardless of their feelings and/or “free will” choices?”

FH

FH:

"All of these issues begin and end with, "is Jesus Christ who he says he is?" "

What does the existence of Jesus have 2 do with evolution? They aren't even similar subjects, let alone conflicting ones.

-ol' 2long

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Posted by Stan-ley

Melody:

Yesterday you said--------------- Stealing has always and always will be immoral.

Stanley said: So the question I have for you is:

Would you consider stealing food to feed your starving baby who will surely die without nourishment?

I know I would!

Regarding absolute morality or the universal code:

All we need is ONE exception to the rule to demolish the theory. In many instances morality is near absolute and the usage of a moral code is quite helpful. But, in the end morality becomes relative as soon as we find exceptions or new situations. And IMHO it does not mean the absence of God.

FH response: (** No, I disagree Stanley. The CHOICE is always there, but it does NOT change the “moral code” or the fact that “sin” of all types is wrong. The sin would also be that someone couldn’t ask for assistance and then receive assistance. The “reason” for the “choice” that would have to be made would be that others would REFUSE to help someone in need. [“Am I my brother’s keeper?” “Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you.”] Another sin would be deciding to steal that which did not belong to you for whatever “justification” you choose. The issue is NOT whether or not “starvation” is a primal driving force in making choices, moral or otherwise. The issue is how ALL humans obey the fundamental Moral Code and/or whether or not there is any “authority” that has the “right” to impose, mandate, establish, etc., ANY Moral Code on all people regardless of who or where they might be. **)

[quote] Stanley said:

Melody:

Stealing food to save the baby’s life that cannot be an immoral act. It would only be immoral in the eyes of the shopkeeper (assuming he has no heart) or by a law written by someone who is an absolutist who believes in this so-called universal code.

Letting the baby die when you could have easily go to an open market and pick food from an unguarded stand would be moral in the eyes of most folks in the planet and without a doubt in the eyes of God.

And if this poor parent is taken to court one would hope the judge is not an absolutist.

BTW, this is a common scenario faced by extremely poor people in 3rd world countries. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Stanley, making choices is not the same thing as DETERMINING what is moral BY the choices we make or the CIRCUMSTANCES under which we make those choices. Arguing for that IS arguing for Moral Relativism and that there are NO morals that are absolutely applicable to everyone regardless of circumstance. If I were starving, or if my children were starving, and the society around us would selfishly refuse to help alleviate that starvation, I would most likely choose to violate the moral code about stealing and covetousness regardless of what the potential consequences might be. The choice between “life and death” is a prime motivator. But the “choice” is not what determines “right or wrong,” it is the moral code itself that determines that. Think of it this way, Daniel chose to obey God. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego chose to obey God….instead of give in to the human proclamation of behavior even though their “choice” of obedience would likely lead to their deaths. Neither the Lions nor the Fiery Furnace killed them because God chose to intervene. But God’s intervention was not a “requirement” of their choice to obey. They chose to obey regardless of whether or not God might choose to save their lives. They looked at God’s eternal laws and life with God as more important than finite human concerns. They looked at God as being THE authority, with the RIGHT to impose HIS will upon Man, not the other way around.

So, we are back to the question of “authority” in determining what moral code should be accepted and what moral code should be applicable to ALL humans regardless of time or place.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Stanley said:

melody:

You are making my point.

To kill the shopkeeper and to steal his money to pay for medical treatment for the baby is not the same as stealing one banana out of 500 in display in his food stand.

The situations are completely different therefore one must take that into account before deciding whether the act is immoral or not. To simply state this is always immoral regardless of the circumstances is not the way to go IMHO. In the end DP makes a lot of sense. These things are always subjective and or relative to many other factors.

I would say most people would think that killing the shopkeeper to steal his money is immoral even if the intention was to save the life of the baby. However, stealing one banana to save the baby’s life is a completely different situation.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No Stanley, this is an opinion that I would disagree with. We are NOT talking about a “matter of degrees” as to whether or not some action is a sin. Certainly we understand that some actions may have a greater “degree” of harm, but your argument is sort of like saying that someone is “just a little bit pregnant.” Either you are or you are not. Whether or not you have a 6 pound baby or a 12 pound baby isn’t the issue. Whether you have a normal delivery or need and emergency C-Section is not the issue. Whether you have an uncomplicated pregnancy or you suffer from extreme “morning sickness” the entire pregnancy is not the issue. The “issue” is you either are, or are not, pregnant. The rest are consequences of that pregnancy.

To put it into MB related values, there either “IS” or “IS NOT” adultery, whether it is of the Emotional variety, the Physical variety, or a combination of the two. A person either “IS” or “IS NOT” faithful to their marital vows. Certainly there are differing “degrees” of consequences for infidelity just as there are differences in the degree, or “Class,” of the affair. (ONS, entangled, addiction, etc.) The MOTIVATIONS for the choice to sin by committing adultery are not the issue. The choice to be faithful or unfaithful is always our “free will” choice. We can “fool ourselves” into thinking that our actions are “justified.” But they are NOT, at least not according to an “authoritative Moral Code” laid down by God, to which He became a participant in the covenant.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Stanley wrote:

Melody:

That universal code you refer------ the so-called absolute standard is merely the opinion of the collective. This is a compendium of the individual opinions of folks like you and me. It may be helpful to call it an absolute point of reference, but in reality it is not.

To have absolute morality we would need a perfect entity such as God to guide us------ I have no problem with that. I believe in God, however, he refuses to communicate with me directly. Sure we know of the Ten Commandments, BTW the Jews have over 300 commandments. In any event I think that it is impossible to write commandments that will cover every possible action and situation. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Stanley, you want a direct, real-time, phone line to God? You want God at your “beck and call?”

Stanley, God DOES communicate with you, and me, directly. HE does so in the pages of Scripture that are available to you 24/7, without commercial interruption.

Your concluding statement is an opinion, but it is a false opinion in MY humble opinion. God HAS written commandments that cover every possible action and situation.

It is we humans who CHOOSE to NOT obey God’s commands that cause the problems. It is the presence of EVIL and Satan, along with our basic sin-nature, that cause us to “choose poorly.” I will take you back to what was said earlier about the “TWO greatest commandments.” ALL of the other commandments “hang” on those two commandments. If we DO those two, the rest will follow. But we can’t do those two IF we allow “circumstances” or “personal desires” to be an “excuse” or “justification” for disobedience. WE don’t have that “authority.” God has the authority.

Stanley, this “propensity” of humans is embodied in the need for Jesus Christ to be the perfect sacrifice on our behalf….. “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” “Therefore I myself will work salvation for them.” ….in the beginning….and God pronounced it good…. And God created woman out of man so that man could not say that he was “better” than woman, but so that the two would be equal helpmeets of each other. “Thou shalt not eat the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.”

Stanley, "man" has been trying to “justify” sinful actions sin the very beginning. But the “standard” is God, not man.

<small>[ February 05, 2005, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: ForeverHers ]</small>

WAT, this is ALL YOUR FAULT, you know!? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Dimpsasawa said:

FH--dimpsasawa, I want to be sure I understand the position you are arguing, so if you could clarify WHY you chose to "except" God from your statement I would appreciate it. As it stands, you imply that only the existence of God would allow for an "absolute" standard of morality, and I just want to be sure that IS what you are arguing.

D--Yes, that is essentially what I am saying. If God exists And if He is the source of ultimate goodness And He has revealed what is morally right and wrong And we have interpreted these revelations correctly, Then MR has no standing--we have objective proof of what is right and wrong.

FH--Next, what sort of "objective demostration" would you consider to be "proof positive" that murder is morally wrong? I suspect that we are back to discussing WHAT or WHO determines that an action by ANY person is morally good or morally bad. This is back to the "yardstick" issue I talked about earlier. But, for you to ask such a question implies that you DO have some sort of acceptable (or required) objective demostration in mind.

D--I would consider “objective evidence” for any claim or question, not just this one, to be either one of two things:
1) scientific verification
2) a true logical (note: not just a
reasonable argument) proof
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Thanks for the response, D. I, obviously, agree with your first paragraph because I DO believe that God exists.

So let’s spend a minute on your “objective evidence” standards. But before going there let me make it clear that even in the face of “objective evidence” humans are quite capable of still rejecting the facts because they “don’t want to.” Perhaps it’s because it might “interfere” with what they “want to do” if they were to allow for any authority OUTSIDE of their of own wants, desires, and feelings as being the sole determinant of “right and wrong.”

1)Scientific verification.

If by this you mean “scientific method,” then it would fail the test of “reproducibility. We simply cannot reproduce God, nor can we reproduce Creation. We also cannot “reproduce” under “laboratory conditions” the reality of LOVE, but we do accept it as being real. It is verified by other means than the strict “scientific method.”

2) a true logical (note: not just a
reasonable argument) proof

Okay, what you are really asking is to “Prove God exists.” So, before going into a “proof statement” for you, let me ask you to define what YOU would consider to be sufficient “true logical proof?” Understand that what you are asking for is a rather large topic and “reason” is part of the proof, since all arguments must incorporate “reasonable argument.” I believe I understand the difference you are trying to make, but I want to be sure that what I think IS what you are thinking you need. (i.e., a “reasonable argument” could have been made, in fact was made, in the past that the Earth is the center of the universe and that all things revolved around it. We know the truth is that “reasonable argument proof” was in reality false. Same sort of thing with the idea that the Earth was flat.)

But let me begin with just one “logical proof” argument to start things off. Only ONE condition can be true. God exists or God does not exist. All things were created by God and according to His willful purpose, or all things came into being randomly and completely by chance. Life was created from Life, or life randomly evolved by chance and physical properties (laws) only. These are “either/or” choices that mutually exclude each other. “Reasonable argument” will have a lot to do with “Proving” one condition versus the other.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Worthatry said to LINY:

OK, let's say I'm a moral relativist > I established my own baseline based on my upbringing, learned experiences, and societal influence (including laws and yes, observation of organized religions or individual codes based upon a diety) - and this baseline gets reinforced over time. Why can't my baseline be just as good as any "authoritarian" established baseline? In many cases - as can be plainly seen by the number of "Christian" WSs we see on this board - mine's a fair sight better, hmmmmm? If a person with a moral code the basis of which is gold plated Christian, Islam, whatever - chooses to be a WS - what good has it done? How many WSs have we had described here who claimed that he/she and their infidelity partner were brought together by God? More than just a few. Where was that "basis" when it was needed? Did it suddenly become variable? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">WAT, you are too smart of a man to argue such nonsense. You know, as well as I do, that MY choice of a baseline cannot be imposed upon YOU. It’s MY choice, not yours, no matter how “superior” I might think my choice is over whatever you might elect to choose.

In many cases - as can be plainly seen by the number of "Christian" WSs we see on this board - mine's a fair sight better, hmmmmm?

Now, WAT, this has to about the most condescending thing I’ve heard you say in a long time. Your “decision making ability” might be a bit better than anyone who chooses infidelity as the way to handle perceived or real marital difficulities, but it certainly does NOT make your “moral code” superior to God’s moral code, or theirs if you argue that anyone has the right to determine their own moral code irrespective of ANY authoritative baseline.

How many WSs have we had described here who claimed that he/she and their infidelity partner were brought together by God? More than just a few. Where was that "basis" when it was needed? Did it suddenly become variable?

The “Truth” never changed anymore than “gravity” would be suspended if someone jumped off a tall building because they “chose” to believe gravity didn’t apply to them or their given situation. SIN, Worthatry, is at the basis of these poor choices whether the “offender” is a Christian, an atheist, or any other religious belief you might choose to toss into the mix. No, WAT, the Moral Code established by God did not “suddenly become variable.” Human choice, “free will,” is always variable. God did NOT create robots without the capability of individual, independent, thought and choice. God WANTS our choice to be obedience to His commands, His Moral Laws, but He does NOT impose that obedience upon us. HE wants our obedience to be freely given to Him because we choose to love Him, obey Him, and accept Him as THE authority over Heaven and Earth. God HAS created consequences for sin (for the wages of sin is death), as well as the ONE way to obtain forgiveness and a recommitment to humble obedience and not willful disobedience. That way is Jesus Christ. ALL of Christianity hangs on the person of Jesus Christ, who he is and what he did on our behalf. “IF Christ be not raised, then our faith is in vain.”

The corollary is also true: “IF Christ HAS been raised from the dead, refusal to accept him is vain, false, and self-centered.”


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I didn't say "dumb enough." What I said - in so may words - was that I pity those who feel that they have to obey some higher "authority" in determining right from wrong and that I find more worth and ownership in following what I believe to be right from wrong of my own free will. No one makes me do it. I own it. I am responsible for my standards, actions, and mistakes - no one else. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">On this point we agree. However, perhaps not in the way you might think. First, you are targeting Christians (and possibly other religious faiths as well) with the notion of “Forced Obedience.” That is simply NOT true. Christians obey God because we LOVE God and what He has done for us. We CHOOSE to obey God in response to Jesus’ admonition; “If you love me, obey my commands.” “If you love God, obey Him.” Inherent in that command is a CHOICE, the choice to obey or not to obey, yet the choice is left up to the individual not imposed or coerced.

The simple point, WAT, is that you choose to “enthrone” yourself as the authority and accept personal responsibility for your “standards, actions, and mistakes - no one else.” That is commendable and is also consistent with what God has told all humans. Salvation is PERSONAL. No one else can choose to be saved or “damned” but the individual himself or herself. We each, whether we realize it or not, choose to accept responsibility for our choices, beliefs, standards, actions, and mistakes.” The ultimate function for consideration is ETERNITY and where we will spend it. There IS only one name under heaven by which we may be saved, no matter how “good” we may be by “human standards.” Who IS the “holiest” man on earth? Everyone else would be “less holy.” Whose personal choices are “more moral” than everyone else’s? Everyone else should submit their chosen “morals” to that “holier” individual’s set of chosen “morals.”

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I don't agree with you here. As stated above, your use of "feelings" isn't exactly how I stated my standards. But nonetheless, my standard of right and wrong, the Golden Rule - the basis for me of which is my upbringing and learned life experiences along with societal norms and laws - is working for me much better than many who claim to be led by a higher moral authority. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">WAT, this whole issue of “morality” in society is but a dim reflection of what God established all the way back at the beginning of Creation. We still have within each of us “knowledge of Good and Evil” because we gained that when Adam and Eve ate the fruit. But without a willing submission of our will, now sinful in nature, to God’s will, we try to appropriate some of God’s perfect moral laws into our chosen societies. We “band together” with “like-minded” individuals and seek to impose our “will” upon others. We don’t grant them the “free will” to choose a different set of morals if those morals would conflict with what we have decided are important to US.

This “conflict” will be with us until God establishes His eternal kingdom and we all (believers in Christ that is) have glorified, sinless, bodies for the rest of eternity.

So the issue again dissolves not into a disagreement about whose morals might be superior to another human’s, but to “IS Jesus Christ who He said He was?” The answer to that question determines the rest of our choices, and our forgiveness when we “choose poorly.”

FH:

"Only ONE condition can be true. God exists or God does not exist. All things were created by God and according to His willful purpose, or all things came into being randomly and completely by chance."

Yep, she either does or doesn't exist. I agree.

But there is a third possibility regarding your 2nd statement: All things were created by God 2 come in2 being randomly and 2 be completely selected by the benefits (or lack thereof) of those changes in the environment where the individual exists.

God created the universe.
God created the physical laws that govern its behavior.
God's physical laws led 2 the formation of stars, planets, and life on planets.
God's "spiri2al laws" (I'm making this up as I go, so bear with me) led 2 the inevitable evolution of intelligence and abstract thought.

This thread is GOD'S fault! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

-ol' 2long

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">FH:

"All of these issues begin and end with, "is Jesus Christ who he says he is?" "

What does the existence of Jesus have 2 do with evolution? They aren't even similar subjects, let alone conflicting ones.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">2Long, both evolution and creation beliefs are just that, beliefs about the "HOW" everything got here. None of them are "provable" by the scientific method.

Quite simply they begin and end with Christ because if He is God the Son, the Word, and "all things were created by him and through him" then all the humanistic evolutionary belief is irrelevant. By the same token, if Jesus Christ is NOT who he said he is, then all of Christianity is a sham an no "better" than any other human belief or construct.

For the record, 2Long, geology (or Physical Science) has little, if anything, to do with the issue of LIFE. The general "rule" that everyone, evolutionist and creationist alike, ascribes to is that "Life begets life." The "exception" for evolutionists is that the FIRST life arose from inanimate life completely by random chance. We'll not even go at this time to what is necessary for "intelligent life" or "sustainable life."

"Rocks are rocks" as the saying goes. Oh sure, there are certain types of rocks that may have been formed out of the remains of formerly living creatures, but you know what I mean about the difference between animate and inanimate, life and non-life.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But there is a third possibility regarding your 2nd statement: All things were created by God 2 come in2 being randomly and 2 be completely selected by the benefits (or lack thereof) of those changes in the environment where the individual exists.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">2Long, this is the equivalent of saying that an architect, supplier, and land owner (triune entity, if you will forgive the poor analogy) made the CONSCIOUS CHOICE to create the Sears Tower in the particular place called Chicago, Illinois. So they gathered all the materials and drew up all the plans and put everything on the ground selected for the site. Then they walked away and let the "laws" of random chance construct the entire building. By the "laws of chance" it COULD happen, given enough time, but the improbability of it happening is SO remote as to make it impossible. So while hypothesize that it "might" happen, even under the best of conditions with all the time in eternity, that building WILL NOT get built, and certainly NOT according to the given blueprints even if anything taller than a molehill could get "jostled together."

<small>[ February 05, 2005, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: ForeverHers ]</small>

This thread is fascinating! I appreciate all who are contributing regardless of their position. I am finding that I am better able to understand why someone in FH's position irritates me so much.

Nothing personal to you FH, it's just that I grew up in the bible belt and heard this type of conversation continuously; you said -

Salvation is PERSONAL. No one else can choose to be saved or “damned” but the individual himself or herself. We each, whether we realize it or not, choose to accept responsibility for our choices, beliefs, standards, actions, and mistakes.” The ultimate function for consideration is ETERNITY and where we will spend it. There IS only one name under heaven by which we may be saved, no matter how “good” we may be by “human standards.” Who IS the “holiest” man on earth? Everyone else would be “less holy.” Whose personal choices are “more moral” than everyone else’s? Everyone else should submit their chosen “morals” to that “holier” individual’s set of chosen “morals.”

My experience was that these same people who said what you've said go out and live their life immorally because they felt that as long as they were "Christian", and talked the talk they would be "Saved" no matter what actions they took. There was always "next Sunday", when whatever they did during the week would be erased, leaving them "clean" to start all over again with whatever behavior they chose. There was no morality to their actions, only their words.

I'll take someone who behaves morally, whether they are Christian or not; over someone who "preaches" Christianity and acts as they please, knowing they'll go to heaven regardless of their actions, because they've been Saved.

Again, this isn't a personal attack on FH or Christians - just my personal experience growing up in the bible belt.

Edited to add - that the people I admire the most are the ones who quietly go about their day "living their morality" to the extent that no one really knew what religion they were because it simply didn't matter because their actions did all the talking.

<small>[ February 05, 2005, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: CSue ]</small>

CSue, I live in the Bible belt and have most of my life, so I wouldn't agree with your generalization that all Christians are hypocrites who simply talk the talk but don't walk the walk. That is a very unfair, and fallacious generalization that you couldn't rationally support.

Of course there are hypocrites in Christianity. There are hypocrites in all walks of life. Just because one observes a specific standard is NOT a proclamation of perfection, so you can't hold Christians to a false standard that you manufactured and then claim they have failed said illusory standard. Christians are not perfect and hardly claim to be. [they admit they are sinners, no?]

That being said, the level of adherence to Christian principles by followers is not a reflection on Christian principles, but rather on the fallen nature of man. Let me give you an analogy. We have laws on the book against murder. Murders still occur, but that does not mean that the LAW IS deficient, it only means that MAN is deficient. See what I mean? It does not mean that the standard is BAD, it means that some men are bad.

The fact is that it is not a Christian principle to use forgiveness as a license to steal. It is AGAINST Christian principles, so you can't blame Christianity for someone else's corruption. You can't rationally condemn Christianity because some don't abide anymore than you can condemn our laws because people break them.

And as far as hypocrites go, can you think of a better place for them than church?

<small>[ February 05, 2005, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

ML,

"And as far as hypocrites go, can you think of a better place for them than church?"

Not if it supports them in their hypocracy!

And BTW, I am not meaning to talk in absolutes - just sharing my experience as to why I get so irritated at "the talk". It's simply a trigger, and as triggers go, it's always helpful to understand them!!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by CSue:
ML,

"And as far as hypocrites go, can you think of a better place for them than church?"

Not if it supports them in their hypocracy!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And that is my point. There is no Christian principle that supports hypocrisy. There is not one principle that allows forgiveness to be used as license to steal. As I demonstrated above, you are condemning the wrong party. And doing so with very fallacious generalizations.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And BTW, I am not meaning to talk in absolutes - just sharing my experience as to why I get so irritated at "the talk". It's simply a trigger, and as triggers go, it's always helpful to understand them!! [/qb]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And my trigger is fallacious and slanderous stereotypes that can't be supported.

<small>[ February 05, 2005, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>