First point:

No it would not matter what you believed. If you were to believe that the universe was sneezed out by Bernie the purple elephant it would have no consequences. And there is no "point" of us being here, only the "point" we create ourselves.

But ultimately, we care for our theories through integrity, a behaviour common to humans. If I reckon something to be correct, then I will support it.

...

Logic is an entirely subjective concept. Humans are evolved to interpret the world in a certain way, and this is our logic. For example, read about quantum mechanics, the reason it's usually seen as a difficult subject is because it defies our human logic. When you read on this subject, you need to somewhat adopt another form of logic, because our logic is thrown out of the window.

...

"Either you believe murder to be wrong or else there is no morality that exists at all and we should let people murder whoever they want."

Wow, that's a false dichotomy if I've ever heard one. Have you ever considered that we don't let people kill others because it is generally not good for the society to let them do so?

There is no absolute morality, there are no objective morals. Why is it wrong to kill someone? Can you genuinely say? Why is it seen as ok to kill someone in combat, but not for fun? This is not a dilemma that is grounded in absolute morals, only subjective/relative morals.

I'm going to speculate a bit here, but killing in combat is ultimately protecting your own group allowing you to pass on your genes. Whereas killing for fun increases the risk of you dying yourself when the person being attacked fights back, and that behaviour will not allow you to pass on your genes. Those who do kill for fun will become extinct very quickly.

Not killing for fun, but killing only when necessary for self preservation would be consistent with evolutionary theory. Perhaps that's why we don't kill people without good reason (apart form in a few key cases).

In this case a loose moral code exists and it's explanation is natural, not supernatural.

...

Last point:

Scientists are constantly trying to observe the Universe to see if the laws of physics change in any area. There have even been a few key pieces of research that suggests some laws of physics may change in different areas of our Universe (source). I don't know. But even so, if our laws of physics were constant, it would not necessitate a creator in any way; we could more likely be the lucky Universe out of many Universes that would exist if M-theory were correct (and this is where the anthropic principle comes into play).

The point he's getting at is that you can't just ignore parts of the argument if you don't have a valid reply, and then replace them with another unrelated argument. It's not sporting play when debating.

When debating it can become very tiresome and frustrating very quickly for the other side if you ignore their best points.

Personally I don't care, I'm not going to chase you down for a rebuttal. But I do think it is not good form.

(I can admit that at times I do become frustrated with another debater's behaviour. But in these cases I will outright ignore them, not just answer a portion of their points.)

...

Also, it is not acceptable to ask someone to answer a rebuttal aimed at someone else. Final-fan may not support the same hypotheses as me. He may even agree with some of your points and not mine. Just because we're on the same side does not mean that it is appropriate for you to request his answers to questions that were addressed to me.

If you wanted your rebuttal to me to represent answers to his points as well, you should have said so.

If final fan wants to answer those questions, then that is his choice.

Highwaystar, the main reason I did not rebuttle to your reply is because you did not ask me any questions. You simply made statements about what I posted. I could have chosen to expand on what you stated, but instead since I saw no questions that needed answered I moved on. If you want me to answer something pose it in the form of a question and I will be more likely to answer it instead of taking the time to expand on everything you make a statement about.

I will, however go ahead and rebuttle on one statement you made in point 1 part 2 I believe. You were saying that colours can be better explained by biology and physics rather than by God. I do not see how you can even have physics and biology without an intelligent being that causing those methods of study to come about. I sound like a broken record but I just simply dont see how you can get complex thought and logic that starts from a singular point. How can Physics and biology suddenly come about with out the intelligence it takes to understand them?

I already argued the other two points with you and we ended up full circle, but I think this one is an interesting one.

Does absolute morality exist? I think the answer is no. If you look at the broad spectrum of civilisations and behaviours of humans as both individuals and as societies throughout history, you'll find a wide variety of moral beliefs that vary wildly. I doubt the Mongol hoard felt it was particularly wrong to kill and rape. They felt completely justified in their actions even if we find it reprehensible. A socio-path who is incapable of feeling compassion for others is not going to have the same moral compass as others.

The reason we have similar-ish morals today is that for a functioning society and civilisation to thrive for any historically relevant period of time, certain laws and rules make for a better society. Even today however, morals can differ greatly from one culture to the next. In Western civilisation, it's wrong for a woman to be gan-raped for the actions of her brother, yet this occured in a remote region of Pakistan and the locals viewed it as morally correct.

I also don't think you can discount the biology, psychology and environment when talking about morality. For a functioning society, certain qualities/personality traits are desirable and these have a heavy genetic influence. The culture you grow up in also has an impact as the views of your region are passed to you from a young age. Take a look at the animal kingdom and how different domestic animals like cats and dogs are from their wild cousins. Generations of these animals have been bred amongst humans and have incredibly different behaviour that is now ingrained in the genes. A domestic cat is far less likely to kill another cats kittens (if anything I've noticed my cats are more gentle with kittens) than a Lion who had just found another lions litter of cubs.

I made many points, just because they were not in question form does not mean they are not intended to be replied to, especially when they are a response to your points. Does every statement addressing one of your points really need to end with a question saying "what do you think of this?"

...

Again, you're coming up with another false dichotomy - Either the Universe has a creator to create physics, or there is no Universe.

Physics does not require a creator, if it did you would not be making the statement "I understand there is no way to measure "God" with science, because it is something in the supernatural realm" because physics would be proof of supernatural intervention. Heck, you could throw the conservation of energy out the window straight away.

How about a third option. Physics is a consequence of infinite chance. If an infinite (or incredibly large) amount of Universes existed, then there would be an unimaginable amount of combinations. Some would have the same laws of physics as us, many more would have different laws of physics than us and some may even have no laws of physics. It's just a coincidence that this universe is suitable for our type of life to observe it.

It's just a thought. There could be any amount of hypotheses.

The origin of the laws of physics themselves is an intruiging question, maybe one that may never be answered fully. But it certainly does not require one to immediately jump to baseless conclusion that God did it.

...

Just another thought, surely any kind of entity needs physics to exist, otherwise it can't exist. So what physics does God adhere to, and what was the origin of those physics.

...

Ack I've been drawn into a theological debate now. This was not my intention. I originally wanted to stand up for atheists against being seen as boring grey emotionless machines.

You know from what I read the Atheist population of the United States... essentially those who don't hold any specific deity as their judgments compass is around 13%. That number out strips the amount of Jews, Hindu's, Animists, Bhudists and Muslims combined in the United States. That the number of Atheist in the US is second to the number of Christians in the US is an interesting statistic... I think it needs some clarity though.

To be a Atheist all a person has to do is be a non-believer.

To be a Christian all a person has to do is believe in the words of the Bible.

The problem with the Christian argument as far as "grey emotionless machines" go is to cede that they themselves are without emotion of even character without believing in a god of some sort.

The second problem is that most Christians do believe in a god but not the bible, or confuse a cultural holding as a theological holding. To make is short; Christians can and have personalized god to where the only thing if asked to explain god that you would get is that he/she is all knowing, all loving and ever present. The thing is that they can believe these things because of faith.

My point though is that when approaching any religious debate I've found the best tactic be is to go at faith and expose exactly what it constitutes, the only thing the religious hold on to more than faith is pride after all Christianity is founded of vindication and the last thing a Christian wants to hear is how faith is irrational.

All other arguments are just details to be overlooked by those using faith.

----

Either way glad to see that the creationist argument is over, I haven't seen it brought up in a while.

I'm glad to hear you read my response and looked at those links. 

You said that you don't understand how someone can see beauty in what they think of as the chance product of "mathematical possibilities".  Did you look at a bunch of fractals?  Did you not see any beauty there?  (They are undeniably mathematical in nature.) 

You say I implied "that we shouldn't use common sense when trying to figure out our origins".  Well, you're exactly right!  The reason for this is that common sense, while extremely useful in our day-to-day lives, can and does fail when looking into certain areas like the birth of the universe.  (As a side note, I suppose this is why it's particularly deadly (not literally) when creationists appeal to common sense to get people to ignore science, because common sense is normally so reliable.) 

As you probably know, when you do logic from wrong assumptions (such as such-and-such being impossible due to common sense) you can go spectacularly wrong fairly quickly.  And highwaystar even says that logic itself can fail!  That is truly disturbing to me, in a way that even physics being inconsistent doesn't do.  In fact I am even now wondering if it's ANY logic or just logic that e.g. assumes that physics works the way we're used to or something.  But if there is enough evidence I will have to accept it. 

As an example of common sense not working for some areas of science, I gave that video as evidence.  What do you think of that?  Do you admit that common sense would fail, and therefore can't be trusted when speculating about the creation of the universe?  If not, why not? 

You ask me why physics exists.  I am not sure that is a question that can be fully answered, let alone whether I can do it.  But we have physics because that's the way the universe came out.  I suppose it could probably have come out differently, in which case life as it functions in this universe would probably be impossible.  But other ways of life might be possible that are impossible here. 

But here is an important point:  the "laws of physics/mathematics" WERE NOT formed.  They were never formed except for in people's imaginations.  There is just physics and mathematics as they are.  The "laws" are just ways that the universe works that people accept completely so that they are considered "laws" (in the case of physics) or a system of self-consistent number manipulation (math).  When people find out new and interesting ways to jiggle the numbers they are sometimes called "laws" because they will always come out that way and let people do interesting things.  Do you understand and agree that the "laws" are not the creation of the universe (or God) but humanity? 

As for why things were defying common sense (atomic structure etc., you say gravity but I don't know about that one) at the creation of the universe, I suppose it has to do with the extremely high energy state that things were in, and the unimaginable concentration of matter.  As for how that matter got there, as I said there is ongoing speculation about that. 

As for the question of why murder is wrong if people are just chemicals etc., I take it you are implying that without purpose (as from God) there is no point to life and we might as well just knife each other for the giggles.  Well I totally disagree with that.  I will just give you an interesting quote from an extremely interesting story you can read HERE.  It's a Harry Potter fanfiction work, but it also concentrates on scientific principles, and more importantly still, ways of thinking scientifically and ways to avoid thinking in ways that lead you astray or deceive yourself.  The human mind is a pretty murky place apparently. 

"There is no justice in the laws of Nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky. But they don't have to! We care! There is light in the world, and it is us!"

What do you think of that? 

P.S.  And I also think it's bullshit that you think you're Alex Trebek or something and all answers have to be in the form of a question before you will respond to what you disagree with. 

I really don't want to get involved, but I did want to make one point, and then run, which I will do in that order.

It has to do with "why shouldn't you just let people go around murdering if murdering isn't wrong? How can you tell somebody that it's wrong to kill people if you don't believe in god or absolute morality?"

This is a naive and old view of justice and morals. You can see justice as being either immovable, or pragmatic. If somebody goes around murdering people, he must be caught and appropriate punishment meded out (whatever that punishment may be.).

Now you can take the view that he must be punished because he did something "wrong", or you can take the view that action must be taken against him out of pragmatic regard for society.

In the former, it does not matter if punishing the murderer is of any benefit to anyone. He must be punished because he did something "wrong", end of story. The benefit to society is irrelevant, wrong doers must be punished on the basis of doing something wrong. One would assume however that weeding out wrong doers is beneficial, but this is an assumption, not based on any pragmatic results, but again the view that "wrong=bad" "right=good". This can be seen in the example of trying to punish gays. Punishing homosexuals does not have some net benefit to society, however there in times past (and still in times present) have been those that feel that homesexuality should be made illegal, and gays should be punished by means of jail (or in some instanced punished by violence), or at the very least stigmatized. But the important thing to remember is that in this view, wrongdoing befits retaliation and thereby prevention on the grounds that it was wrongdoing, regardless of whether or not it makes the members of society happier.

The second view is that actions that harm society should be reacted against, not because they are inherently wrong, but because taking action against something harmful increases the wellbeing of a society. In this view rehabilitation of the one acting against society is of greater importance than arbitrary punishment of the individual for commiting an act that is viewed as objectively wrong. However said rehabilitation should still be fairly ascetic in nature, and also carry a stigma to act as a deterent towards others that could potentially act in the same way. In this view "wrong" or "immoral" just become shorthand terms for that which is harmful to society (which of course includes individuals since they make up society), and action is never taken against them because what they have done is immoral, but because it behooves society to act against something that is destructive to itself.

The second view is considerably more empathetic towards human beings. As psychological tests have shown, we are essentially hardwired for amorality (the milgram experiments come to mind). Whatever it is we think is right and wrong, we will throw that view under the bus if some one we view as sufficiently authoritative tells us to.  You also have to keep in mind that even most nazi's were not raving lunatic murderers. They had families, jobs, went to church on sundays, visited their grandmother, and then killed millions of jews because an authority figure told them to. Under the right circumstances we are all monsters, so why punish people on the grounds of being a monster? The answer is you don't "punish them" you act pragmatically to attempt to rehabilitate them while detering the behavior of others by being authoritative.

That is how you tell somebody it is "wrong" to murder without believing in absolute morality.

Everyone knows deep inside them what really is wrong and what is right. That's what differs us from animals, you cannot place a human being at the same level of an animal. Animals look for their wellbeing in every action, us humans can for example go through suffering to avoid a major harm. Animals behave like you said.

Germans had the option to avoid killing those "millions of jews" (people still believe what the media says?) and some did, but most of those who didn't and killed the jews, didn't do it out of fear, but because they had been deceived. Much like the masses were deceived in the USA so that the country could join WW2. People mostly do things because of ignorance rather than fear, because they believe in, they have faith in the authority, and that's where us humans fail at being so naive.

But you said that we do things for our wellbeing, define that wellbeing? How is it definded then? Isn't it subjective as well?

Sorry, I would write a bigger response, perhaps later, but I don't have much time right now.

Vagabond didn't say anything about the Germans obeying out of fear.  You clearly didn't look up the Milgram experiment he mentioned. 

Your little talk about humans vs. animals was completely irrelevant to Vagabond's post as far as I can see. 

Now, your question about how we define what the well-being of society is, on the other hand, is a great question.  It's an important question.  But it's not a harder question, and IMO it's an easier one, than "what is the correct set of absolute good/evil deeds (regardless of benefit/harm to society)?"  Because no matter what you say about what we all know "deep inside", people have been fighting over different opinions of that for millennia. 

Lastly, there's a subject I want to approach as carfully and clearly as possible. 
1.  Why did you put "millions of jews" (that were killed by Nazis) in quotation marks?  Does the remark about people still believing the media mean that you don't think millions of Jews were killed by Nazis? 

2.  In what way were "the masses" in the USA deceived as far as going to war in WW2?  (The Holocaust had nothing to do with our going to war.)  Does it have something to do with Pearl Harbor?