Originally Posted by Redundant

The thing about universal morals is that we see the world as it is, and the world as it should be.
The truth is, we do not even need morals to explain things, morals are just a basic concept of altruism which we need to survive. For example:

Before your examples, I have a thing or two to say. Altruism is a category of morals. If you mean to say morals have stemmed from altruism, well it is not the case today.

Animal A is together with its family, sees some sort of threat and warns the others so they all flee together.
The animal possibly does it without any conscious reason. It may be instinct, but that instinct helps it survive, mainly because probably most of his kind have similar genes as his and will therefore act the same. The human being is not a super intelligent species that can fight his instincts either. We all act according to them because instincts are way stronger than our conscious mind.
Here, you provide a Darwinistic origin of morals, and subsequently, the conscience; but you are not refuting moral universalism.
The thing now is, that the instincts we follow often are not morally correct.
Didn't you just say that morals come from instinct?
There is a thing called egoism. Most people are egoistic. Life is a competition, we live in a capitalistic world. Many people are aware of the poverty in Africa but don't give a flying fuck and continue with whatever they do.
I don't believe you have correctly defined egoism.

In philosophy, egoism is the theory that one’s self is, or should be, the motivation and the goal of one’s own action.

Courtesy of the internet encyclopedia of philosophy.
Right, well are you saying egoism is contradictory to our morals? If morals have stemmed from altruism (which is effectively the exact opposite of egoism) then are you saying egoism stems from our modern idea of capitalism? I would say egoism stems from the emotion of pride, or more evidently, human hubris.
Sure, there is a thing called remorse. But, we do not only have a bad feeling about moral decisions, sometimes you get that feeling when you buy something you thought will be awesome but when you purchased it it wasn't really worth it, so you have a bad feeling about it and regret your action.
I don't quite see the connection you are making. So bad moral decisions are only morally bad because they weren't worth it? Please elaborate.


For some reason I do not buy that statement, simply because it seems like a rather blunt “goddidit” interpretation.
We have a remorse because god made it so we bla…
That is a rather poor attempt to explain the true nature of things because it does not really help us understand anything. We have many great scientists working on problems we do not understand yet. That truly helps us understand the human nature.

Cut and pasted a few paragraphs down


Now let us take a look at the so called proofs for the existence of god by Thomas Aquinas.

Proof for the existence of god

Show

---

1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.

2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.

3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

That statement is based on an assumption that has yet to be proven.
We do not know if there needs to be an infinite series of movers.
Completely correct.
And we cannot randomly go ahead and assume that god is immune to that kind of regression.
The definition of The Supreme Being implies that it cannot be moved, or caused. It cannot be the greatest if something greater had caused it.
Even if we go ahead and use god as explanation and start point for that regression, I do not think it could be used as proof for the characteristics the Christian god is ought to have. Omnipotence, benevolence, omniscience etc are all not necessary to be some sort of mover
Right. The first domino does not have to be greater than the other dominoes. Though, the cause of the universe must be that of The Supreme Being. This being is omnipotent, benevolent, and omniscient.
Omniscience and omnipotence are paradox in the first place. When you are omniscient you know what is going to happen, when you know what is going to happen you have no free will and do not have the power to change the future. Therefore you are not omnipotent.
Omniscience is of intelligence, and omnipotence is of power. When God knows what is going to happen, God does have the power to change the future. Again, breaking the secular theist approach, I will say the following:
God knows what is going to happen.
God knows our choice.
We know our choice.
We perform our choice, as God knows it.
God can indeed intercede, as he is omnipotent.
God does not force us to change our choice, as he allows us to have free will.

Moar proof

Show

---

4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.

I find it very hard to believe that people call that a proof for the existence of god.
I can make the same argument with all sorts of thing.
Soda tastes good, there are greater sodas and lesser sodas, therefore there must be one truly magnificent soda and that soda is god.
okay…
Your analogy is no where on the paper. God must be The Supreme Being. That is a term I am throwing around here, but here is the argument for The Supreme Being: The Ontological Argument

Ontological Argument by Anselm

Show

---

1.Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be thought of.
2.The idea of God exists in the mind.
3.A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4.If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5.We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
6.Therefore, God exists.

Keep in mind that this is not a proof of God necessarily, but that God is Supreme Being.

even moar proof

Show

---

5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.

We already have proven that evolution is a fact, natural selection is pretty much a proven theory based on that fact etc.
We do not know what the cause for existence itself is…yet. Being satisfied but that kind of statement is very lame and does not help us in any form.
We need to be curious to discover new things. That argument tells us to be happy with what we know. A typical “goddidit” statement.
Those who explain things by saying "Goddidit" is just as intellectually lazy as not studying something scientifically. Now, it is not necessarily the animals and plants that lack intelligence for an end. It is the existence of the cosmos that has no end. The Cosmos needs an efficient cause.

From what I see religion is the search for and worshiping of chasms in knowledge that have not been scientifically explained so far. Which is very funny to me, because rather than trying to explain things we do not know with something supernatural we cannot possibly comprehend we should rather try and learn to understand the world we live in.
I'm gonna go ahead and c/p something I said earlier. I probably just jumped the gun on explaining the sentiment you are making now.
It does not help us understand it scientifically, but religiously. As I quoted from Adler before, religion deals with the parts of nature which science cannot. Though, what science cannot deal with changes as science advances, but religion stays constant (though, as society changes over time, we have misunderstood and outdated passages like that of Paul's message about hedonism). But my point isn't made yet, so here it is. Religion deals with religious understanding, and science deals with scientific understanding. These are not two different explanations to the same thing, they are two different truths that coincide.
(I am going to have to break my secular theism rule for a bit)
Let's take Genesis for example.
Genesis is interpreted as religious truth, not historical or scientific. It states that God's existence gives credence to the existence of the cosmos. That God is the cause of the cosmos, as he is The Supreme Being. This is religious understanding of the cause of this cosmos.
Now, the widely accepted scientific theory is the Big Bang Theory. I haven't studied it much, but from what I understand is that this cosmos and all the energy and all the matter in it originates from an antimatter/matter explosion within another "cosmos". This is scientific understanding of the action that caused the cosmos.



About the nazi ideology: I doubt you believe what you just said yourself.
The nazis did not want to kill the jews and other races solely to form a superior race. They hated them with all their might, ideologically.
Hitler's mistake was viewing the descriptive science of natural selection as a prescriptive moral philosophy. It is true that they hated the jews ideologically, but they ideology stems from Hitler's mistake above.
There are many ideologies that contradict our morals.
No. There are many ideologies that contradict our ideologies.

For example, slavery used to be perfectly normal and fine and hardly anyone challenged that idea until they learned that black people, who have been thought to be lesser creatures, are no lesser creatures but people too.
Yes, a fundamental change in our ideologies, or code of ethics, not in morals.
I mean, we eat animals and for most people it is perfectly fine, even though there are millions of animals being kept in rather cruel ways. And even when they are kept nicely, in the end they get killed for us to consume. If god made animals for us to consume, why did he give them the ability to feel pain? Sounds very lame to me.

Breaking once again my secular theism rule, animals were not created to be eaten. Pain is a physical response for physical reasons.

If we have to rely on the bible to comprehend anything we are doomed, as I explained in my previous post.
It is also not very satisfying to believe in a supernatural soul that cannot be percieved in any way, shape or form.
We just have to assume it is… there…somewhere
/me pokes own head
blah
I insisted that I used The Church's INTERPRETATION of the Bible, not the bible directly. This negates the problem that you correctly pointed out in beliefs solely on the text of the bible, not a concrete interpretation thereof.
And a supernatural soul, I believe is a condition required. I think the brain is necessary, but not sufficient for conceptual thought. Whether it is satisfying or not is irrelevant.
Now, let me bring another rational proof of God. This is not a definite proof, as one may very well be impossible; but it is one beyond a reasonable doubt, and to my knowledge, rationally sound.

1.The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause
2.The cosmos as a whole exists
3.The existence of the cosmos as a whole is radically contingent (meaning that it needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to preserve it in being, and prevent it from being annihilated, or reduced to nothing)
4.If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God