Hello again,
The fact you are speaking to me now, a blinking, breathing being, endowed with speech is the proof you need, but are blinded by familiarity.
It’s proof that I am a blinking, breathing being endowed with speech, nothing more. If you’re going to make the fantastical claim that your god being is responsible for my blinking, breathing, and ability to speak you must FIRST provide evidence that your god being even exists. The fact that I exist is no more evidence that god exists than it is evidence that magical pixies exist.
What are you? By your own view, you are spacedust, which over time, has developed arms and legs and is able to question and think, and ponder on great questions.
I would say there is is only one sufficient explanation for this state of affairs, and that would be a Creator beyond your comprehension.
You can claim that the only sufficient explanation is a creator being until you’re blue in the face, but it remains meaningless until you first provide evidence that this creator being exists. Just like if I claim magical pixies are the only sufficient explanation, I would first have to provide evidence that my magical pixies even exist.
See how that works?
But modern western man, he thinks he is someone who can know for himself. So he analyses and studies the universe and sees that everything is the result, not of God! Who needs God? No - we have processes.
And then he gives this process a name: Evolution.
And he worships this process with a name, and trusts that it will provide the answer to all his questions and solve all his problems.
The scientific method has indeed proven itself to be by far the most effective method humans have ever found for determining how reality works. It’s this method that has allowed us to understand that the Earth orbits around the sun and not the other way around. It’s how we’ve determined that illness is due to infections and disease, not evil spirits, it’s how we know that an erupting volcano is a natural geological occurrence and not due to a volcano god being angry. It’s a method based upon analysis and study and the ability to replicate results
But of course it’s not anything anyone WORSHIPS nor does anyone trust that it always provides accurate answers, which is why all scientific findings are constantly scrutinized and then updated as new information becomes available.
He thinks that it will satisfy his need for moral certainty. He thinks it will give the universe moral character.
A process. A blind process, with no personality, no real name, but it will do all of this!
You really should work on your reading comprehension. I never claimed that evolution creates morality. Evolution provided us with the ability to empathize and using that ability HUMAN BEINGS developed a sense of what is right and what is wrong.
AGAIN I noticed you’ve failed to address my questions about all of the things that religions claim are sinful that the majority of people don’t think is in any way immoral. In you’re correct and it’s GOD that instilled within us our sense of morality, why is it that MOST people don’t think it’s a SIN to eat a ham sandwich? Why don’t MOST people think that a woman in public with an uncovered head is SIN? Why do the majority of people not believe that it’s a SIN to work on the Sabbath? If you’re going to claim that societies having laws against murder is somehow evidence that your god does exist then you’d have to conceded that the fact that most societies DON’T have laws against eating pork and shellfish is somehow evidence that your god DOESN’T exist. You can’t try and play it both ways.
What’s wrong, do you realize you don’t have a reasonable explanation for why so many religious sins aren’t considered moral sins so you’re just going to try and ignore it?
Evolution provided us with the ability to empathise
Please reflect on the grammatical structure of this sentence and what it says about what you attributing to a process. Consider whether hidden behind your reverence for Evolutionary Theory and Scientific Method is a deeper need.
Empathy you want to make into Love and Kindness, I can feel it. You don't want to let go of Love in the universe. But really, all you're describing is a trait developed out of expediency and self-interest. Again, a disbeliever who won't stay true to his disbelief.
"You can claim that the only sufficient explanation is a creator being until you’re blue in the face, but it remains meaningless until you first provide evidence that this creator being exists."
Here we find the consequences of an intelligent person giving their need for an Absolute Being to the Scientific Method. You want evidence FIRST, without appreciating that you can't even get to that stage of being someone to consider evidence, without God and an awareness of Him...
Science can never give any certain answers, as you have said. It only provides theories. Thus, according to the scientific method, it is only a theory that you yourself exist. You can't be certain that you exist. You can't be certain that you are even reading this now. You can't be certain of anything. You can't be certain that there any other minds out there to understand you.
In such a model-outlook, no words would have definite meaning, and speech would be rendered impossible. Any attempt at meaning would be useless, because there would be no underlying certainty one could rest one's words upon. A bit like money losing the gold standard.
And therefore, you would not be able to begin a scientific enquiry, because you would have no meaning to begin from. To put it another way, you would begin from a question mark, and all you would have as a consequence, would be question marks. And you would not be able to speak at all.
However, this isn't the case is it?
You do start from a certain position.
You start from a conviction that there is someone - you- who is doing the seeing. You start from a conviction about words or signs and their meaning. None of this comes from scientific method - you begin from a conviction about meaning, that science hasn't found for you, and that science couldn't confirm. In other words, a priori knowledge.
This knowledge we all have intuitively and life would make no sense without it. We would all be reduced to the state of animals, barking, or speaking in gibberish. And the
provider - to use your word - of this can only be a Necessary Being, namely God.
A true non-believer would wring his hands till death - or a passing over into his next material condition - realising that any speech would be impossible. Or else do a bunch of crazy things, seeing everything as meaningless.
But atheists today don't do this, and in doing so, reveal that they do rely on God. But their pride won't let them name Him, or search for Him.
"AGAIN I noticed you’ve failed to address my questions about all of the things that religions claim are sinful that the majority of people don’t think is in any way immoral. In you’re correct and it’s GOD that instilled within us our sense of morality, why is it that MOST people don’t think it’s a SIN to eat a ham sandwich? Why don’t MOST people think that a woman in public with an uncovered head is SIN? Why do the majority of people not believe that it’s a SIN to work on the Sabbath? If you’re going to claim that societies having laws against murder is somehow evidence that your god does exist then you’d have to conceded that the fact that most societies DON’T have laws against eating pork and shellfish is somehow evidence that your god DOESN’T exist. You can’t try and play it both ways."
Sin consists in disobeying God.
God is the only way of having moral certainty.
We have an intuition of moral certainty and right and wrong. Therefore, we have an intuitive awareness of God. We require revelation to know the details of right and wrong, and this will cohere with our intuition and reason.
I'm a Muslim fyi, not an orthodox Jew or Christian. We believe that revelation came to different peoples at different times, with the Qur'an being the final revelation. So you are able to work on Saturdays no problem.
