ID, intelligence, meaning, purpose.

[Mordecai]

Your existence is also owed to non-selective forces and "competition" can entail cooperative strategies.

What non-selective forces can I owe my existence to? None that would contribute to a formulation of a life purpose. Also, cooperative strategies? That's what fascists do to compete. My point exactly.

But that's all beside the point as you can't derive a statement like, "you ought to life your life as a competition against living things" from a statement like, "your existence is the result of your ancestors out-competing others." This is a Humean is/ought fallacy if there ever was one. Somewhere there is a missing premise that goes, "you ought to behave in a manner that accounts for your existence" that is going unjustified. I'm not sure what your justification for that would be.

If it worked for my predecessors, it will work for me. Our instinct is to live, thrive, reproduce and succeed, correct? What's the logical way to define that, if Darwinism is the Truth of why I exist? Well, I live because of Darwinism, so my descendants will also live due to Darwinism. The greatest and best success is to beat the competition, and I am living proof and all life is living proof, all of it having come from Darwinism.

Again, why did scientists unite behind eugenics? Darwinism. Eliminate the competition, and you succeed.

Similarly, if you were designed by a designer who hoped you'd be a rapist, it does not follow that you ought to be a rapist. The moral obligation is distinct from the designer's intent for your behavior.

I can't imagine a designer that wants me to be a rapist, but to each his own. I have this crazy idea that any being that is intelligent enough to create life, can grasp higher and more elevated purposes. I choose to believe in that and aspire to be more like the more intelligent designer that I imagine. That's a lot better purpose than fascism.

[Tarski]

You are right, there are many differnt things that can give life meaning... so, what do you live for?

You can live for art, live for music, live for science, live for sports, live for cars, live for houses,

Sure, there are a lot of things that give life meaning, but the best thing you can live for, the highest purpose, the most noble calling, comes from living for something bigger than yourself, living for soemthing that lasts eternally, living for love, for one another, for the God that makes that possible.

So, there are other meanings in life, but they all pale in comparison to the rewards, Meaning, and Purpose, which are found by those who live for God/eternal families/eternal love/eternal life.

How do you know?

I think your set of assumptions are invented fantasies.

[changed]

How do you know?

I think your set of assumptions are invented fantasies.

Name one thing better than eternal life, family, love, ... becoming a God....

Can't do it? Can't name anything that even comes close?

How do I know? Through the Holy Spirit.

[Tarski]

But what's more, if reason has a unifying effect, and if we think that's good, then "getting our purpose from ourselves," doesn't make a lot of sense.

It makes perfect sense given that it is our purpose. If it isn't my purpose then I may as well be a chair to sit on.

Will we choose an irrational purpose?

People like me are already choosing. We have love, family and beauty etc. It is reality based.

Maybe my purpose is to stick my finger in my belly button?

How silly. Maybe God's purpose is to have you stick your finger in your belly button. It is easier to be sure of one's own authentic purposes than to guess at God's (who probably doesn't even exist and if he does he might not care about us--we don't know. All we have is the writings of men.).

The intelligent people who have a modicum of maturity will use reason to arrive at a purpose. If we rely on reason, and we follow the line of reasoning that starts with Darwinism and ends with nihilism, then we will have no reason at all.

Thats not where reason leads. I use reason. I don't start with Darwinism and I certainly don't end in nihilism. Evolution by natural selection is just another fact of science. It isn't a model for our ethics any more than relativity is a model for our ethics. It doesn't matter how I got here. It could be an accident. I could be the child of a brutal rape, or I could be Frankenstien's monster. As long as I am free to choose my own purposes and have some freedom in achieving some of them, then I have meaning.

If I adopt the designer's goals then they are not authentically my goals--I would not be an authentic human being. I do not get meaning for myself. I only help the designer with his goals and his meaning.

The most intelligent people will become narcissists based on reason and a fallacious premise. But with ID, we don't have that problem.

LOL!!!! BS! There is no basis at all for such statements.

We may well have been created for some purpose that is not for us per se. The designer might be an immature but intelligent alien using creation technology stolen from elsewhere like a child uses a computer. We may be designed by an unknown alien mind with strange goals and cold reptilian ethics. We could be lab rats.

The creator may have no intention of granting us eternal life. We may just die when he is through with us.

ID by itself gives us nothing.

I have an ant farm. My goal for these ants is to entertain me and teach me a little ecology. Their deaths mean nothing much to me. I can't give them meaning at all even though I am far far more intelligent.

We can reason our way to any number of smaller purposes and imagine greater purposes that are truly elevating to humanity, instead of diminishing us to brutes and monsters, like the fascists.

I don't find it elevating to be designed by an alien mind who's goals are not mine. I find it elevating to be authentic-- to seek my own goals and purposes.

I think you just want to live forever and that's all there it to it. ID doesn't give you that at all. You have a shelf life. The designer clearly designed you to die--face it.

By the way, what is in the Bible represents meaning that men have created for themselves. Even religion is our own invention.

[changed]

I don't find it elevating to ...

be loving, be sealed to your family for time and eternity, be humble, be kind... ???

I did not invent the Holy Spirit, nor did I invent the spiritual experiences I have had...

[TAO]

Mmmm... my thoughts behind such a god-less world (and one reason I ultimately reject it), is that such a world can be a greedy and controlling place.

Think of it... you base your entire life on making yourself more smart, more strong, and above all, more competitive. In this world, there is no 'right and wrong', there is simply 'what you can do and get away with'. Think you can take over the world? God do it. How about scam many people earning millions. Go do it. Anything. Go do it. Because there is nothing to lose, and everything to gain. The powerful will control, and those who aren't will submit. The sky is the limit.

That's why I despise such a world - and I'm glad I know it's not the reality.

It makes perfect sense given that it is our purpose. If it isn't my purpose then I may as well be a chair to sit on.

As someone who has spent a long time over many years contemplating purpose (hey, what do you know, I was just doing so this afternoon), I have come up with two possible purposes in life - each leading in the opposite direction. The first possible purpose is happiness (that is, joy found in helping others achieve their dreams). The other purpose is pleasure (the joy found in satisfying oneself).

I oftentimes imagine these two purposes as people, and some song lyrics go:

"One of us won't last the night, between you and me it's no surprise

There's two of us, both can't be right

Neither will move till it's over"

The purposes are of the exact opposite intent - one hopes to raise oneself, the other hopes to raise others. It's the difference between singularity, and total union.

Now certain people have chosen one over the other - obviously, I hope I have chosen the first (although as I am imperfect, occasionally I'll slide and make a mistake relating to the second). I feel that the first is more pure, when I accidentally chose the second, I feel my heart hesitate - and I ask myself why I am being so self-centered.

Other people have chosen the second, and usually indulge themselves in many bad things - desire of money, power and sex most of the time. And although they may use others to achieve their goals, ultimately, they are very singular, caring much about themselves, and little about others.

Those are the two 'purposes' of life, when it comes down to it ultimately. And they split into sub purposes - 'family', 'service', 'humility', etc for the first, and 'control', 'pride', 'distrust', etc for the second.

When you make a decision in life, determine, is it better for you, or is it better for other people. And you will know, ultimately where you fit.

How silly. Maybe God's purpose is to have you stick your finger in your belly button. It is easier to be sure of one's own authentic purposes than to guess at God's (who probably doesn't even exist and if he does he might not care about us--we don't know. All we have is the writings of men.).

You have the Holy Ghost - which should be a good enough determiner at determining God's purposes. And truly, remember, you can learn great mysteries if you truly search and seek for them humbly in front of the Lord. His purpose is one of them.

Thats not where reason leads. I use reason. I don't start with Darwinism and I certainly don't end in nihilism. Evolution by natural selection is just another fact of science. It isn't a model for our ethics any more than relativity is a model for our ethics. It doesn't matter how I got here. It could be an accident. I could be the child of a brutal rape, or I could be Frankenstien's monster. As long as I am free to choose my own purposes and have some freedom in achieving some of them, then I have meaning.

Well you do have choice - that is between happiness, and pleasure. That is the choice that one must make, and all things fall under one of the two categories, depending on the reasoning in your mind (in fact, the same thing can appear in both, depending on the reasoning). So you do have meaning.

If I adopt the designer's goals then they are not authentically my goals--I would not be an authentic human being. I do not get meaning for myself. I only help the designer with his goals and his meaning.

Actually, that is the point really - we don't want to be authentic human beings, we want to rise to a higher state of kindness, love, righteousness, mercy, and joy. However, by doing that, we must forfeit some of our own goals - luckily, the Lord is good at telling us what we need to get rid of, and sometimes even why we need to get rid of it. And no, we still get meaning for ourselves, we just council with the Lord before going ahead with it. And oftentimes, we find our goals align. And the closer they align, the closer we are to him. Eventually, are goals will align perfectly. Why, you might ask? Because his goals are ultimately for our happiness.

I have an ant farm. My goal for these ants is to entertain me and teach me a little ecology. Their deaths mean nothing much to me. I can't give them meaning at all even though I am far far more intelligent.

Ok, first of all, this is a pleasure-side purpose, as you said, their deaths mean nothing to me. You can't give them meaning unless you take it from the opposite side, the cooperative side.

Second of all, couldn't you make their purpose to be showing the excellence of hard work?

I don't find it elevating to be designed by an alien mind who's goals are not mine. I find it elevating to be authentic-- to seek my own goals and purposes.

Yes, but that 'aliens' goals are for happiness. And if you aren't for his goals, then I can only assume your goals are pleasure.

I think you just want to live forever and that's all there it to it. ID doesn't give you that at all. You have a shelf life. The designer clearly designed you to die--face it.

Yep, we were supposed to die. However, we were also supposed to live again. Life becomes very mundane when pleasure is the goal.

By the way, what is in the Bible represents meaning that men have created for themselves. Even religion is our own invention.

The Lord's religion isn't man's invention, that it isn't, certainly.

[Tarski]

Mmmm... my thoughts behind such a god-less world (and one reason I ultimately reject it), is that such a world can be a greedy and controlling place.

Think of it... you base your entire life on making yourself more smart, more strong, and above all, more competitive. In this world, there is no 'right and wrong', there is simply 'what you can do and get away with'. Think you can take over the world? God do it. How about scam many people earning millions. Go do it. Anything. Go do it. Because there is nothing to lose, and everything to gain. The powerful will control, and those who aren't will submit. The sky is the limit.

Well, if that is the kind of person you truly are then God was invented for you to keep you in control. Some of us authentically want to be fair, loving, and create solidarity with fellow human beings and we do not need a heavenly supervisor threatening us with hell. The goodness we promote is our own goal.

All the things you fear about evil people taking control happens and it is only the rest of us that resist. God does nothing. God did not stop Nazism. Eventually, the American armed forces did.

All the goodness you want and all the evil you fear are already here with or without god.

The powerful will control, and those who aren't will submit. The sky is the limit

The powerful already control things. Is God stopping that?

Because there is nothing to lose.

Except self respect and peace of mind. Atheists do not do as you suppose. Carl Sagan was gentle. So was Einstein, Hawking, Dawkins etc.

Your vision of how people live without the idea of god watching them is just flat out false.

On the other hand, check out the religionists around the world sometime. There are lots of scams and plenty of violence.

Again, morality exists, many people authentically want a fair society. All this is true despite there being no god.

Its funny. I know dozens of atheists--nearly all my best friends. Whole societies in Europe are largely atheistic or agnostic.

Yet I have never personally met an evil atheist that wishes to rule the world or steal or murder or even be unkind. Most are sort of community oriented types and love thier intellectual persuits (science, literature, music etc). They are harmless as doves and all without thinking they must be good to avoid punishment from God.

What you are saying is nuts and goes against current reality.

[elguanteloko]

Again, if we owe our existence to our ancestors beating out the competition, that is logical support to claim, "The meaning of life is to beat others."

Good grief, brother! It does not matter how we came here, the meaning of life is a value we assign and NOT a descriptive 'is' from existence independent of us. So, it does not matter how we came to be, our purpose is chosen by us and NOT by what our ancestors did. (You could also say, following your lines, that the purpose of life is to have sex... because that is how we came to be)

Again, that's why Dawkin's admits that to live by Darwinism is to live fascism, letting the weak and infirm die because they deserve it.

And he is wrong. Mordecai, this is outrageously flawed. Just to give you a hint, since most humans do not want other people to die because they think those others deserve it, then "letting the weak and infirm die because they deserve it" would not be a place Darwinism has brought us to.

With ID, we know that we owe our existence to an intelligence(s) greater than our own for an unknown purpose; but we know that the purpose is not to beat the competition.

If you don't know the purpose, why shouldn't a "Darwinist"-type of society be a purpose?

The implication is that humans have value other than our strength; we have inherent value, e.g. intelligence in itself may be our purpose, implying that reason and truth give life real meaning instead of kill or be killed or "nature red with tooth and claw."

Amm... and, how do you know that is the purpose if you just said it is an unknown purpose in the previous statement?

I don't think you have a strong case here that ID doesn't promote morality a lot better than Darwinism does. It's no contest. Darwinism has a logical connection to fascism, while ID has an open door to life's meaning.

Another question, sir, if humans aquired the capacity to assign great value to life and cooperation through Darwinism (assuming we did) , why couldn't we say Darwinism actually favors cooperation in the case of humans?

[Mordecai]

It makes perfect sense given that it is our purpose. If it isn't my purpose then I may as well be a chair to sit on.

But if it came from reason, it's not YOUR purpose. It's a higher purpose than you. Reason existed long before you did.

People like me are already choosing. We have love, family and beauty etc. It is reality based.

Interestingly, fascists could say the same thing. The question is, if you grew up in Germany and were raised by fascists, what good would turning to science do you? It would do me good, since I consider ID to be science. What about you? If you build your foundation on sand (Darwinism), when the storm comes (a society that loves evil), you'll have no reason to not give in. After all, fascism gives you and your family an advantage. You can love your own and forget about the "weak" and "inferior." You can appreciate beauty all the more once they are rounded up and killed, particularly the mentally handicapped and the sickly. They're not so pretty, so why not destroy them?

Sure, that sounds horrendous and unimaginable, but the fact is, history repeats itself. With a foundation of Darwinism, fascism is strengthened.

How silly. Maybe God's purpose is to have you stick your finger in your belly button. It is easier to be sure of one's own authentic purposes than to guess at God's (who probably doesn't even exist and if he does he might not care about us--we don't know. All we have is the writings of men.).

I reason my way to God's purpose, I think. Granted, I read scriptures and listen to prophets, but I think through everything they say. I experiment on their words. So it becomes my purpose, as I believe in it. There's a reason God, by the way, has been directly associated with truth. You say you get your purpose from reason, meaning you search for truth to get your purpose. Your purpose is no more yours, then, than my purpose is mine. We both aspire to truth to get our purpose; but my foundation is a one that gives me hope of being righteous. Yours is shaky and weak (assuming you do, deep down, accept Darwinism as Truth). Ultimately, my belief in God means that I think that there is a Best way, and that is the Best purpose. In order for that to be my purpose, I merely need to comprehend how it is the best.

Thats not where reason leads. I use reason. I don't start with Darwinism and I certainly don't end in nihilism. Evolution by natural selection is just another fact of science. It isn't a model for our ethics any more than relativity is a model for our ethics.

I disagree, because Darwinists owe their existence to it. That means something.

LOL!!!! BS! There is no basis at all for such statements.

Well, give some time and the right circumstances, you can turn all the geniuses into fascists. Again, eugenics. Look at the Nazi scientists, as well. What happened there? I know you're going to be incredulous, because this country tends to worship scientists; however...

We may well have been created for some purpose that is not for us per se. The designer might be an immature but intelligent alien using creation technology stolen from elsewhere like a child uses a computer. We may be designed by an unknown alien mind with strange goals and cold reptilian ethics. We could be lab rats.

The creator may have no intention of granting us eternal life. We may just die when he is through with us.

In the end, we do owe our existence to the purported designer; no matter what purpose we imagine, it's not a good foundation on which to build fascism.

ID by itself gives us nothing.

I disagree. A being or beings much more intelligent made us on purpose. We exist for some reason that is, while not exactly known, still highly intelligent being's purpose. Again, does it make sense to assume a being of much greater intelligence is a fool and an idiot? That's not a rational assumption, and since it is not, ID certainly does give us something. Whoever they were, they gave us an appreciation of beauty, the potential for compassion, the ability to feel gratitude, to learn, grow and understand philosophy and science. That Being apparently wanted us to grow; try reading The Privileged Planet. The designer(s) seem to have intended for us to observe the universe and study it; that doesn't sound like a very foolish genius. Our redeeming qualities came from the Designer, which speaks well of the Designer. As I said, with ID the door is open to morality; with Darwinism, embraced as Truth, the door is shut to real morality. Morality is convenient for the true believing Darwinist, but it has no meaning in itself ultimately.

[changed]

Your vision of how people live without the idea of god watching them is just flat out false.

On the other hand, check out the religionists around the world sometime. There are lots of scams and plenty of violence.

Looks at the stats. The worst violence is caused by athiests.

so.... why do Atheists have the highest suicide rates?

In 2004, the American Journal of Psychiatry reported the following:

[handys003]

In another thread, Mordecia discussing intelligent design submits that although the designers my be only much more intelligent than us rather than infinitely intelligent gods, their intelligence increases the likelihood of meaning and purpose.

Mordecai says

Hmm... just want to mention your grammar needs some work. Revenge is sweet!

[Glenn101]

This is a really silly angle to be talking about why ID is better than Darwinism. The evidence is all that matters in science. You don't pick ID because it would make people feel better about themselves.

Human purpose is a totally independent matter from science. I am human and intelligent. I will decide my own purpose, creating it out of nothing if need be -- my own philosophy, my own goals and dreams. I don't need Darwinism or ID or any religion, science or philosophy to justify my purpose. I decide it and I own it.

No one desighns their own system, philosophy, or even morals en toto. Whichever path a person takes, it is nothing more than a modification of existing systems. Like it or not, atheists in the Christian world owe their moral compass to the religious genre. It has basically defined the social mores for centuries and is entwined in the fabric of existence of much of the world.

One can completely repudiate such values, and become a pariah, an outlaw, else the only choice is live within the society with some sort of modification of the values that suits the egocentric model.

Intelligence does not necessarily give meaning. There have been some very brilliant people who were also very "evil" by societal standards. If intelligence, i.e. IQ were the determining factor in "meaning" then the most intelligent would also be the most "moral", whatever that morality is.

Glenn

[cdowis]

People like me are already choosing. We have love, family and beauty etc. It is reality based.

And each one of those things have YOURSELF as the focus. Do intelligent people choose unselfish sacrifice as part of their life purpose. When a choice is presented to make a significant contribution to the Haiti Fund, or to spend a weekend in a nice hotel on the beach, what does the intelligent godless person choose? What is the logical choice for him. Happiness for himself and family over the weekend, or to help a starving person that he does not know.

Where does selfless sacrifice fit in here?

Where does loyalty fit? The intelligent person has an affair where it is almost certain that you will not be caught by your wife. Does the attribute of loyalty fit into the intelligent godless person's choice -- does loyalty make sense"

I think the answer is obvious. Those higher attributes which are beyond the self-centered interests of the "intelligent" person just don't make any sense in a Darwinian world.

[Tarski]

And each one of those things have YOURSELF as the focus.

Family is not myself. I make sacrifices for my family. I also make sacrifices for complete strangers.

But if you want to play that way, let me point out that when an atheist risks his or her life for someone else, they do it with no thought of heavenly reward. They know that if they die, they really die! I wonder if even Jesus would have died for our sins if he was going to actually stop existing rather than go on to eternal glory.

Do intelligent people choose unselfish sacrifice as part of their life purpose.

Yes, if that is who they are. Are you kidding with all this??

When a choice is presented to make a significant contribution to the Haiti Fund, or to spend a weekend in a nice hotel on the beach, what does the intelligent godless person choose?

They do what they feel is right and contribution to the Haiti Fund seeems likely. Ironically, I remember a few LDS here saying they would not contribute because "that's socialism" LOL.

What is the logical choice for him.

Compassion is not illogical if you have unselfish goals. There is nothing illogical about choosing to help others.

Why do scientist try to further future science when they are just going to die? Well they do seem to want to help science make progress. Hmmm. Unselfish?

Happiness for himself and family over the weekend, or to help a starving person that he does not know.

Ask LDS Droopy and Helmut about this then ask me or someone like Carl Sagan.

Where does selfless sacrifice fit in here?

It fits in just like it does for religious people except that we do it authentically instead of out of a desire to earn a place in heaven (selfish). The fact that you can't seem to even concieve unselfishness without God's vigilent stare shows just how much religion has messed you up.

Where does loyalty fit? The intelligent person has an affair where it is almost certain that you will not be caught by your wife.

So you refrain from cheating only only because God's existence means you can't get away with it?

I have other reasons. Authentic love.

Does the attribute of loyalty fit into the intelligent godless person's choice -- does loyalty make sense

Of course. The notion of a single loving God who will judge us, is a rather new idea. Humans have exited for 100,000 years and loyalty has existed for about as long. It makes sense and it is part of what it means to be human.

Guess what? Atheists are human. Sugar tastes sweet to them, they spontaneously find themselves attracted to the oppostie sex, they spontaneously love their children, they spontaneously seek community and loyalty and all things human. They discover values by self reflection and by coordination with the larger community. ("Human rights" for example is a fairly secular notion as is democracy!)

I think the answer is obvious. Those higher attributes which are beyond the self-centered interests of the "intelligent" person just don't make any sense in a Darwinian world.

Again, this is how messed up religious thinking can make you. Of course it makes sense.

I find to goal of heavens reward to be self centered (I had a bishop tell me that it certainly was self centered but so what).

On the other hand, acting unselfishly because of an intrinsic and authentic value is something an atheist can do. We don't have to wonder if he/she is doing things just out of fear of God's wrath or a desire for 70 virgins.

[Tarski]

No one desighns their own system, philosophy, or even morals en toto. Whichever path a person takes, it is nothing more than a modification of existing systems.

And ancient Biblical morality and philosophy is a modification of prior fear based superstitions and polytheisms.

The better often grows out of the inferior. So I can conceed that much. I just say so what? The authenticity lies in the williness of progressive individuals to make or accept the modifications according to increasingly intelligent and increasingly compassionate values rather than stay stuck in a primitive stage. Since humans make the modifications, it is humans that are creating it out of what they have created in the past. We are the source.

Like it or not, atheists in the Christian world owe their moral compass to the religious genre.

Well then Christians owe their moral compass to what informed their philosophies. This include prior pagan ideas and later influence from the greeks. As you say, nothing is totally original--only modified (hopefully for the better).

If intelligence, i.e. IQ were the determining factor in "meaning" then the most intelligent would also be the most "moral", whatever that morality is.

Well, it was the creationist ID proponents that were trying to sell the idea that intelligence alone provides sufficient meaning and purpose. I'm just taking that on for the sake of argument. Take it up with them.

[cdowis]

Family is not myself. I make sacrifices for my family.

A cynical person would remind us that making our family happy also makes us happy.

I also make sacrifices for complete strangers.

I am not questioning whether you do. But is that rational? How does an intelligent person come to that conclusion. Because it is the "right" thing to do. And where does that feeling of rightness come from? I would suggest that the Spirit of Christ enlightens every person, even the most hardened atheist.

A sense of rightness, of self-sacrifice can be found in the "intelligent" godless individual, but it does not come from rational thought. It does not make sense, unless there is something inside us which leads us to Christ, even if we deny it.

But if you want to play that way, let me point out that when an atheist risks his or her life for someone else, they do it with no thought of heavenly reward. They know that if they die, they really die!

It is not rational, so it comes from something else, even when he denies a life after death. Somewhere, deep inside, hidden even to himself, he KNOWS. And that sacrifice proves that he knows.

[Analytics]

Great thread; it inspired me to update my signature.

[Analytics]

I think the answer is obvious. Those higher attributes which are beyond the self-centered interests of the "intelligent" person just don't make any sense in a Darwinian world.

The scientific fact that we are the products of evolution proves that it does make sense that we are how we are.

If you are interested in knowing the details, a good place to start is, The Moral Animal: Why We Are The Way We Are (The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology) by Robert Wright is a pretty good place to start.

[cdowis]

The scientific fact that we are the products of evolution proves that it does make sense that we are how we are.

If you are interested in knowing the details, a good place to start is, The Moral Animal: Why We Are The Way We Are (The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology) by Robert Wright is a pretty good place to start.

I suggest that you start a new thread, and quote specific passages that bolster your claim rather than some sound bite, and telling us to read a book.

We are interested in any proof of evolution that you may offer that excludes Intelligent Design. I am interested in what you call proof.

[Tarski]

Family is not myself. I make sacrifices for my family. -Tarski-

A cynical person would remind us that making our family happy also makes us happy.-cdowis

Uh huh.

*A cynical person would remind us that being unselfish also makes us happy.

*A cynical person would remind us that following God also makes us happy.

You are playing a rather silly game here aren't you?

[cdowis]

Uh huh.

*A cynical person would remind us that being unselfish also makes us happy.

*A cynical person would remind us that following God also makes us happy.

You are playing a rather silly game here aren't you?

Logic tells us that making our family happy would then foster a "happiness" or satisfaction atmosphere in our home, which benefits us directly. Making a family in Haiti happy brings us no direct benefit.

Unselfishness makes only logical sense when it directly benefits oneself.

You are trying to avoid the obvious. It is not logical to sacrifice oneself for a higher cause, out of a sense of "rightness" in a world devoid of Deity. Self-sacrifice is illogical, senseless, to the intelligent godless individual.

Even a casual examination of the biography of Stalin, the epitomy of the philosophy of Darwinism, makes that very clear. His sense of "right" is power of the strong over the weak, no room for religion or deity. This is Darwinism in its practical application, without the benefit of the Spirit of the Lord.

[Tarski]

[

color="#FF8C00]I also make sacrifices for complete strangers. -Tarski

I am not questioning whether you do. But is that rational? How does an intelligent person come to that conclusion. Because it is the "right" thing to do. And where does that feeling of rightness come from? I would suggest that the Spirit of Christ enlightens every person, even the most hardened atheist.

I would suggest that explanations that combine social and evolutionary forces are less magical.

On the other hand, if God can exist without being a creation or needing explanation, if mathematical truths can exist without being a creation, then moral truth may well exist in some platonic sense without being a creation even without God! If so, then perhaps humans are slowly discoverng moral truths like they discover mathematical truths or like they discover new stars.

Many possibilities exist that don't depend on God. In fact, just saying God exists doesn't really explain the "rightness" of what is moral at all. Could God have decided that selfishness was to be declared moral? If not, then the morality exists as it is beyond his power (coeternal!). He would have no choice and He would be out of the loop except as a self-appointed enforcer.

An atheistic platonist could just assert eternal objective morality without a god as an enforcer.

[elguanteloko]

Unselfishness makes only logical sense when it directly benefits oneself.

Since helping others causes me to feel fulfilled, and if helping my direct family also causes me to feel fulfilled... how do you distinguish whether one is caused by Darwinism and the other one did not? Why can't we say BOTH are beneficial to a person since both cause similar effects?Is the feeling of fulfillment not a benefit?

[Tarski]

Logic tells us that making our family happy would then foster a "happiness" or satisfaction atmosphere in our home, which benefits us directly. Making a family in Haiti happy brings us no direct benefit.

Unselfishness makes only logical sense when it directly benefits oneself.

You are trying to avoid the obvious. It is not logical to sacrifice oneself for a higher cause, out of a sense of "rightness" in a world devoid of Deity.

Basic values are not are not logically deduced. The function more like axioms that seem natural to us because of our humanity (built by evolutionary, social, and empirical forces). If you knew more about logic, you would realize that the axioms are chosen because they seem useful or self evidence, they are not deduced. You have to start somehwere and humans naturally start with certain values and things grow from there.

In your terms, the Light of Christ just isn't literally from a guy named Jesus.

You are wrong about what is obvious. Furthermore, there is nothing strictly logical about seeking benefits for oneself. There is no logical contradiction in seeking my own destruction.

I could (in principle) construct a perfectly logical computer that was programmed to seek benefits for Mary down the street rather than for itself.

[Analytics]

I suggest that you start a new thread, and quote specific passages that bolster your claim rather than some sound bite, and telling us to read a book.

We are interested in any proof of evolution that you may offer that excludes Intelligent Design. I am interested in what you call proof.

Whether there is "any proof of evolution" is a different topic. You made the baseless claim that human morality isn't explained by evolution. I countered that yes it is, and provided an excellent reference. If you'd like to understand the topic, you are free to learn about it. But I'm not going to argue with somebody about it that hasn't done his homework. I'm just not in the mood to do that right now.