Prove me wrong.

There are many people on this site [myself included] who love a good religious debate. However they always end up the same way, in the same stalemate of;

"I don't believe in God because there is no proof" Vs "You have to have faith to see the proof"

The following idea will hopefully add some new thinking to the old subject.

People who believe in God say that they cannot prove God, because you have to have faith, but that is the most ridiculous thing in the world.

It is not the job of the non believer to prove something does not exist, because that is impossible...and if you don't understand this then just go try and prove something doesn't exist. Really, prove Yeti's don't exist, prove UFO's don't exist...prove 10000 exact doulbes of yourselves don't exist...please try it....

For example, right now, in the room you are all sitting in, I have placed a small piece of paper with the name and address of God on it. Prove to me that isn't true and that it doesn't exist and you will quickly see you can't. It is impossible to prove something does not exist, the best we can do is say we can't find it with the resources we have. You can search your room, turn over every book, table and carpet and I could still say it was there and until you found it there would be the possibility you had missed it, however slight....anyone who has lost something and sworn blind they had looked everywhere for it can understand this.

For this long winded reason, if I were to really say to you that I'd placed a bit of paper with Gods name and address on it, I would be expected to show you proof so you would then have faith in my words. Christians want it the other way around, the ask for faith without offering anything and it's bad thinking pure and simple.

My points summed up;

1. It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist
2. It is therefor the duty and responsibility of anyone who says something does exist to prove it, to show some evidence that is not subjective.
3. It is not the duty of the non believer to find something that does not exist until it has been proven or some evidence shown.

Have fun with the Yeti's/God search.

Everyone seems to agree that to the human mind--everything has a beginning and an end.

That quote inspires me to do some stinking thinking Let’s suppose that my greatest grandfather was born in a mass of primordial “Substances High In Transmutations” or SHIT. Please pardon this acronym. Let me explain I am not saying that my greatest grandfather began in a pile of sh…it. I am saying that life came from “Substances High In Transmutations” or SHIT at least from a purely scientific theory
Now let’s theorize that in order to be SHIT you have to take SHIT. [Organic matter consumes organic matter}
This presents a problem in the law of opposites though, and philosophers have pondered this mystery to determine who gives a SHIT. Because Substances High In Transmutations can be broken down to a simpler DNA, which I understand is the substance of life. Some people believe that SHIT just happens, but others say they don’t know SHIT, because in order to know all about SHIT you have to be SHIT for a long time. Some folks feel like SHIT, but most people spend their whole life trying to get their SHIT together. If one can find the synthesis where opposites meet and merge that would be where all the SHIT began. The paradox is that if I am more full of SHIT than my greatest grandfather was then there would seem to be some “Good Orderly Direction involved “ but if I say that GOD created SHIT I am going to get burned as bad as Giordano Bruno did from one side, and the other side will say that I am really full of Papal Bull SHIT.

Oh well I can always work on a theory explaining why every thing in the universe is getting farther apart
Well let’s see, there is more room out than there is in. and they have almost proven there was a big bang
Let’s see …what about the cosmic Farther Apart Reaction Theory, or cosmic FART. ….Damn it!!!

Matter cannot be created, nor destroyed just because you can dilute it or flush it is not gone
The truth always comes out. “The end”

PS I am not an atheist, but I am not against free thinking

When we all think alike heaven and earth will unite

I'm sorry.. this has nothing to do with this topic. But usually when you have a topic that needs intelligence it's the same people that type out on it. Bob, Micheal, Kevin, and Donald. I find it rather funny. I might just be sick in the head..

Thanks guys, I go to the effort of asking what I thought to be an interesting question, perhaps too interesting it seems, and what do I get in return?

Barely relevant anti evolution rants from Micheal [big shock there!] and "who gives a shit" views from Bob.

Cheers guys, no really, you have totally inspired me to keep attempting to honestly contribute to the quality of discussions in here.

Thank you Kevin, I won’t bother to present my thesis on the origins of a feces to readers digest

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, pudding being the creation. It would be easier to trace pudding’s origin than the creator’s. A subjective belief is to the spirit as food is to the body. When food is digested, by the parts of the body for that purpose, the nourishment becomes the body. Faith must be digested by the mind, when we accept a belief into our soul, we may become what we believe .I believe the story of Adam, and Eve is very subjective and Genesis was never intended to be objective. The stigma of religion is nothing new, but the wounds are superficial to the divine.

The stigma can be placed in error on all that is good

I was once ask to write a prayer for a mission to explain the symbols of faith which was accepted by members of the church.

Whether it is a poem or a prayer is subjective, but I believe it is on topic because of the use of the word proof

Prayer for the Mission
O Lord, we pray for the strength to carry out these holy missions
That You may look with favor upon our humble petitions
We pray, that Your most holy living word, that proclaims salvation
Can be understood by all of us, in our own personal situation
We pray for more faith, with the most holy symbol of
The crucifix, that is the greatest proof of Your love
We pray, the light of Christ can be seen by all, so that the darkness of sin will cease
That the Easter candle shines, like the light of Christ to create harmony, and peace
Give us this day our daily bread, the bread that is Jesus, we pray
That nourishes our life, and makes us the bread of life, for today
We are called to Your altar, with Jesus our brother
Sent forth on a mission to serve You, and one another
Lord accept our prayer, as a love poem from all of us to You
So that all of these symbols can be understood before we are through

Born Blind
With all the imagination in my mind
I cannot imagine being born blind
Imagine never being able to see,
With the eyes that were given to you and me

Can the blind envision a sight?
Without eyes to refract the light?
Can they dream of what light would reflect,
See the beauty of any object?

The blind may only feel what I see
Maybe they can feel better than me.
The warmth of Light as it was to be
Seen without catastrophe

I can’t see darkness until my eyes are bold
I don’t fear darkness until I am left cold
When I feel the cold, I can feel the fright
Of being separated from the Light

Lord, all of the substances that are took
By all of us who have eyes but won’t look
Are we searching for a feeling, where there is no rest?
We must open our eyes to find the feeling that’s best

If we believed in transubstantiation
We would seek only what leads to salvation
Heaven ‘s the only place to find ecstasy
Where the lame shall walk and the blind shall see

Main Entry: tran·sub·stan·ti·a·tion
Pronunciation: -"stan(t)-shE-'A-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : an act or instance of transubstantiating or being transubstantiated
2 : the miraculous change by which according to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox dogma the eucharistic elements at their consecration become the body and blood of Christ while keeping only the appearances of bread and wine

I mean no offence to anyone who does not believe as I believe
But does anyone doubt that we can become what we believe, when the spirit of God moves within us?

PS Kevin I respect your power as a mod, but please don’t flatter me by proclaiming that I broke Janis’ forum rules

I’m just a rhymester

Kevin. Prove to me you were honestly trying to contribute to this site.

Cheers

Oo... hah. =l.

Nobody, the original post was honest, and meant to inspire some honest discussion. There you have it, evidence to back up what I said, did you really need me to write that?

Micheal, I'd be most overjoyed if you would be so kind as to stop preaching and actually respond to my question and idea, because if you have no interest in doing so, and are in fact, just using this thread to further your own beliefs [which is how it looks given you haven't even touched on what I said], then you are being most rude and really have no place in this discussion.

Bob, I love how you say the asking these kinds of questions is a waste of time, yet your profile is choc full of quotes about life and what is means and how you should live it. Weird eh.

I am only partly miffed this thread wasn't taken seriously...i mean I expected distraction techniques from Micheal, because straight off he knows I'm right and can't actually debate with me based on sound thinking.....but I thought maybe someone might actually find the idea as interesting as I did.

Back to the "whats your top ten reality tv shows" threads...

My points summed up;

”1. It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist”
I will not contest this point

2. It is therefore the duty and responsibility of anyone who says something does exist to prove it, to show some evidence that is not subjective.

I believe it is safe to assume that KEVIN MURRAY exists, or at least an entity capable of communication. The objective evidence that you go by the title KEVIN MURRAY can be reasonably challenged. I once was involved in a debate with a young lady whom identified herself as Obscurely Fading she came into the same debate under the account of Katalina Kristina. I introduced her to herself. If KEVIN MURRAY has a genealogy he might find it interesting that an ancestor of his may hold more than one title.
Is it possible that God could have been misinterpreted through history? From my study of my own belief, the Lord, whom was said to have been born around the beginning of a common-era has more impressive credentials than any of my ancestors do objectively, or subjectively. Therefore I will humbly admit I do not exist

3. It is not the duty of the non believer to find something that does not exist until it has been proven or some evidence shown.

That kind of thinking taken to extreme could to this day get me locked up.
Yet the supreme judges in my country are not defending the origin of the laws.
The only evidence that needs to be shown is the law, not the creator of the law
Rules are always subjective yet they exist to be broken. I am sorry that you find my opinions rude, But they do not exist since they have not been proven

7. Any swearing or vulgar slang is strictly forbidden
1 : to take an oath
2 : to use profane or obscene language : CURSE

Profanity cannot exist if nothing is sacred

“Micheal, I'd be most overjoyed if you would be so kind as to stop preaching and actually respond to my question and idea”
I will be overjoyed to respond to a question when I find one Kevin, please identify it with a question mark.

You missed the point Micheal. I am not saying that everything must be proven in the manner I was suggesting, that would be insane, as you so rightly pointed out, you could say that I, KEVIN MURRAY [with an A at the end micheal...oh how my Scottish clan blood boils!] do not exist because to you and everyone else on this website, there is no proof except my words.

That is a silly way to react to my statement.

What the original post was aiming at was the idea that if I were to proclaim that I do exist, and attach other ideas to my existence, say that I also am the son of God and have many powers and wisdoms, then, then you would want proof I imagine. And I, if I was a Christian God would tell you not to test me and to have faith, in other words I wouldn't give you any. But as a person making such claims, even making claims to believe in such a things, it is reasonable and right to show your work as it were, to show why you believe in a way that others can understand.

No one has ever done that for Christianity in recent times, not to the best of my knowledge.

Does God exist. And if he does I should therefore prove it.

But what if God doesn't want to be found, what if he is just sitting there laughing at watching us mortals bickering on his existance.

It is common for people to doubt the unrequited trust they put in another being. Hell, if I believe in someone with all my heart, and expected him to do all the things he is supposed to do. Which is take care of me, and feed me and cloth me and even play with me. And at the end, he doesn't...And I never even met him or seen him, or even heard from him. Hell, I would definitely doubt him, and even ask if he is truly real.

God is real to those who believe him, and to those who don't. Simple as that, and if you want to say prove God exist to those who believe in him. I ask that you prove he doesn't exist.

Kevin - I was being sarcastic.

You can never prove to me you were being honest in your original post, just as I can never prove there is not a note in my room with the name and address of god on it. Honest to god people can not see sarcasm if it danced naked in front of them.

Your disregard for all the previous posters annoyed me, and found myself lacking the desire to input due to your pessimistic attitude towards the opinions of others.

Why should I speak if I am not heard?

Deflate your head, then respond.

In all honesty, whilst being interesting to read, the initial post did not contain a question, but rather it was a collection of statements intended to provoke reaction, which happened.

I don't see how it is possible to complain when you know there is no reply to your statements that can possibly refute the system you have ventured or raise argument or further questioning that can possibly alter the assertions of the original post.

If anything it's a mission statement telling people to shut up and not bother you with questions regarding religion and its possible existance because as you know religion is a faith based system that has strength based on the fact there is no proof.

A good hypothesis that is kind of redundant, when you think about it, considering the people most likely to respond.

Any honest contributor to this discussion that has studied the history of Christianity will be forced to admit that there has been human error in religion that sinks to the high heavens.

If we use only common faith that is not a theological virtue we might somewhat objectively conclude that the son of man as He called Himself in the book that has been printed more than any book in history has had an era that has lasted over two thousand years. Christ has also had over a million buildings built in his honor, not to mention the people that have professed faith in him. There are those that want to say he was an ordinary man. I have come to the conclusion that the most valuable words in the bible are subjective. I never wished to dispute that fact.

Kevin, I cannot prove God as you say; however, I can prove that you, a claimed agnostic or atheist or whatever, do act and live in accordance with the idea that there is some sort of god or being or higher power out there.

As a matter of fact, I can prove that all the people on this site that claim to be agnostics or atheist or the such act the same way. Therefore, if everybody lives there lives in accordance to the idea of there being a God, then there is no reason to prove one, because God already runs there life.

You can prove that people who are agnostic or atheist believe in some sort of God or higher being? Haha. I'd like to see that one. Concidering you don't know what goes on in their heads. And you probably wouldn't even know how to go about trying to find out.

first of all I chose quite specefically to word my statement without the word belief.

second of all, if you wish for me to prove it you should stay tuned until Kevin comes back and asks me to. Then you will see my proof.

I was foolish to begin this discussion in a place like this, for talks of this kind, with so much open to interpretation are destined to come undone without face to face interaction.

I didn't expect such a conclusive rejection however, but it's as I said initially, whenever really interesting threads come up in here, they never last, and the threads that do endure are the brainless ones.

Actually Kevin, I never told you you were wrong, nor did I take bunny trails. If you had appreciatively taken the time to accept my statement it would go a long way in what you asked us. Another thing. You are asking for something opposite of how things work. It is not the believer's responsibility to prove there is before the unbeliever proves it is not. If you were a student of mathematics you would remember that often times, actually more times than not, in math to prove something correct, a person must prove it wrong. In doing so the person actually cannot prove it wrong, and actually proves it right. If taking the mathematics approach, prove there is no God. Since one can't, then there it be the opposite.

Despite this rant, I would have much more appreciated if you had accepted what I had to say earleir, or go read nietsze (or however you spell it).

Cory, unless I actually addressed you personally do not take it for granted that I was.

You can all relax, safe in the knowledge that I'll take my daft ideas somewhere else, boo hoo for me.

Peace.

Kevin, I did find your orginal post facinating and eye opening to a certain extent. It was your reject for others opinions that turned my cold shoulder.

I believe some of them were actually trying to input, rather you took it as an insult, and belittled them.

Why would I try to 'honestly' contribute to the post after such a thing? Answer me that...

Kevin, you made a general reference to those who opposed your way of thinking. I opposed it with substantial evidence as is used in many aspects of life today, and you, instead of engaging it, passed it by without taking it into account. Your above thread expresses a disatisfaction with everybody's response but your own. How can you possibly be dissatisfied with anybodies response but your own when you have failed to actively engage in conversation, failed to delve deeper into the issue. This is the reason why I did not come out directly and give you my proof that everybody's daily lives prove that there is a God, but instead said I would if you requested it of me. Because you didn't ever really want to hear it in the first place. You just wanted to make your own statements and then get pissy at other people when they disagreed with you because you think you have an infallible argument. Had you truly wanted to hear someone's proof you would have continually questioned the individuals who disagree with you to, at the very least, help point them in the correct direction of what they want to say and why they want to say it, which is what a truly good discussion does. It reaffirms not just what, but the specefics about why people believe what they believe. You have failed on both accounts. And now you choose to leave. Well, my hats off to you. Have a nice day.

(Waits for a witty retort)

"Have fun with the Yeti's/God search"

I have not always been comfortable with comparing a primitive legend with God

In the peak of the common or Christian era when Christians ruled, or even when we attended religious classes where our thoughts were delicately controlled, to compare God with a myth could get you in serious trouble. It seems to me the burning of heretics was an effective objective approach to controlling thought, although it did very little for public relations. I do have fun with free thought. I do not find it hard to understand that there has never been a Yeti era. The concept of God does seem to scare the hell out of some people while others take comfort in a loving heavenly Father Creator. The yeti is a creature, not a creator

Cory, you are right, I shouldn't have been so negative about others people ideas, I'm just a big baby when it comes to threads I create, I get defensive of them and forget the issues and information presented and offered.

That being said, I don't agree with your post about mathmatical equations being used as a way to explain how belief works. I am still of the mind that it is the duty of the believer, when they make a statement to other people that they expect others to believe, to give evidence to support their words. And the more amazing the statement, the more amazing the evidence needs to be. I think it was David Hume who said, speaking of the paranormal, that if someone makes extraodinary claims of ghosts or Gods then they must give extraordinary evidence over and above what they feel to be true.

I'd love to hear how you think we all support God by our lives, really I would, given that you know almost nothing about any of us save our words in this website....I'm guessing you are going to have to be very general.

I am sorry if I came across as harsh with anyone who offered their thoughts to my original post....Micheal, you're still a space cadet though...

You apologised and that should be good enough for anyone. It is a rare thing on this site.

Cory - I believe Kevin is right about your theory. I don't see how you could possibly claim we all support god through our lives.

Kevin - I still don't agree with you that the believer has to prove their beliefs to the world.

Hi Kevin

You know what, last year i attended school and every time when we would write tests, the teacher told us what was in them and what chapter's weren't...So as i was about to write my finals, which were from the state and not prepared by our school..Our teacher, who also did not know what was in the test said we should study all the chapters except the last one. I studied all, even the last one and the day of the test came. The entire paper was based on the last chapter!! But luckily i had studied it, so i was okay...Because YOU don't know if there is a God or not, if you died today as an atheist, where would you go? Just like the people who bothered to look at the last chapter, when the test came they were prepared, so ask yourself if there is truly a God am i prepared?

XXX, as a point of view, a person who lives a good life and does their best to be a sound individual whilst also not believing in God should surely have more standing in heaven, where such a place to exist. The reason I say this is because they act out of nothing more than a desire to lead a positive life, and not because they want to get into the afterlife with stars or please a deity.

‘I am sorry if I came across as harsh with anyone who offered their thoughts to my original post....Micheal, you're still a space cadet though.”. Thank you Kevin I believe it takes one to know one. That is why I have always enjoyed a good debate with you where you don’t have to follow any judicial proceedings “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”

Those who have testified in a court of law anywhere in North Carolina or across the country recognize these words to be the oath administered to witnesses prior to their sworn testimony.

As has been procedure for decades, the right hand is raised, and the left hand is placed on the Holy Bible.

I am sure that you are not one of the people that find the truth as constant, but believe it obeys the laws of infinite possibilities.

Politicians sometimes find the truth damaging and are left with no other option but to attack the character of their opponent

If the truth were known about me I believe it would show that I have always admired historical figures that had a passion for seeking the truth for the truths sake

The truth can be bought and sold in religion politics and science

It seems we have not impressed anyone with our distractions. Could we stick to the topic and boldly go where no man has gone before in a universe of infinite possibilities, with no evidence of intelligent design?

May the force be with you

There are some historical figures I admire from a great distance but still admire whet they did.

Otto Skorzeny: Probably the bravest man to grace this earth since the days of the Spartans. A devout catholic and devisor of some the most crazy hair brained rescue attempts he should have died seventeen times over.

He was also probably the most despised Nazi after Hitler and Julius Streiker. Both Streiker and Hitler were catholic too.

My point? It's easy to look at religion from just one angle and talk about it's existance or non-existance. How about the daring and amazing things people like Skorzeny can accomplish with religion as a base of inspiration? If he wasn't a devout catholic would he have been able to do the things he did? (eg. land a plane on the side of an Italian mountain, disable pro-allied guards without incident only a pilot to help and escape with Mussolini as cargo back to Vienna.)

Can that be proved?

*** I am neither a nazi, nor a racist or anything else that may be on the tip of your tongue come to think of it. I just know my military history and recognise heorism on all sides of every conflict. ***

I have stated many times that religion is a force often separated from God
It was the powerful religious leaders of Christ’s day that demanded His crucifixion
I will not only defend the Christian God’s existence, but also His benevolence.
Bret, please understand that I am not disputing the great power of subjective ideology, which can be used for good or evil. In my study of history I have found the most successful heroes are the ones that allow their selves to be used by God to further His cause. There have been many that have tried to use God to further their own cause.
It did not seem to be the goal of Hitler, Mussolini, Julius Streiker, or Otto Skorzeny to give power to the catholic authorities, and they were defeated.

Logically people go around observing and acting according to the truth of their being a God or higher power or order out there.

Societies around the world, including America, and England and those forth, except the ones I know no about, put forth laws because they believe certain actions to be moral and just and other actions to not. For instance thou shalt not murder, or steal, or a whole bunch of other laws that countries have. People agree with these moral judgements and values that people have turned into law everyday by living and abiding by their countries laws, which (some of them) support a higher set of morals, and therefore act according to the truth of a higher power.

The idea of laws founded on a higher morality in itself acknowledges a higher power and bases itself on the fact that there is something evolutionarily higher out there than the homosapien that has determined a certain set of higher standards and judgements that people should follow. However we are the ones who follow these sets of standards and morals.

If you don't believe there is something out there higher than the homosapien, then you agree that the homosapien as we know it is the highest thing up to this point in the evolutionary tree; thus making human standards and morals the standards and morals the highest set of standards and moral and the definitive set we should strive to abide by.

However, Nietsche's uber-human has yet to be found (The next step in human evolution that sits above us on the chain of morality and intellectually and so on), meaning all humans sit on the same moral, judgemental, and intellectual planes. Therefore, since we are all the same, their is no higher moral or standard to live by because we all sit on one level, and whatever one human decides they will follow is just as high a standard as what another human decides to follow because all humans are equal in evolutionary status and power. What you say is no better than what I say because evolutionarily we are equal. Therefore, Charles Manson's decision to kill people is just, as is O.J.'s, just as just as my decision to not murder, or your decision to pay taxes or not pay taxes.

But this is not the way people live. People live believing and agreeing that there is a higher moral code that should be followed. Our social laws, norms, and mores are based on this. So by living in today's society and abiding and agreeing with the laws, one ultimately observes and lives according to the fact that there is a god or higher power out there that has ordained a higher value set for us to live by. Plus there is the thing Michael said about swearing by God when in court, which is just one of the examples I could use to prove my point.

Cory - I'm sorry, but that is a bleak display of information. It proves nothing and isn't even factual evidence.

It is a very nice "opinion," and I'm sure if stated in a more theoretical manner it could be impressive, but it means almost nothing.

(I'm sorry to be so blunt, but the information presented was hardly evidence.)

I could vary well state that your theory is false, based on your perspective, through all the violence, drugs, and other immoral behaviors to which humans pertain this day and age.

Laws are based on common sense, not on a higher morality. Just as sex before marriage is not against the law. Just as drinking or smoking is not prohibited.

Humans do NOT live with the same moral standards. To say such a thing would completely obliterate moral standards altogether. I live by a different moral standard than you do, just as you do from me. No matter how small that variation may be.

“Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”

So help "you" god. It is referring to whatever your beliefs may be, if any at all. That statement has no basis in your argument.

Actually Nobody, open your eyes and read. I never specefied to a certain God. I stated god, God, higher power or order of things. Therefore your last line is irrelevant in this debate.

Secondly, it is a logical procession of theory. Get use to it if you take a philosophy class. I may have been bad at explaining it, but it is the same stuff that evolution bases its theories upon.

Thirdly, it is not an opinion it is a logical procession one comes to after observing how society works in todays world. Whether you choose to believ it or not does not give the value of right ot wrong to it. If someone chooses to disagree that 2+2=4, that doesn't mean that 2+2=something else. It just means that the person who chooses not to agree doesn't agree, but the equation maintains its air of correctness.
Fourthly. I never stated anything outside of law, so anything you stated outside of law has no relevance in your rebuttle. I said that this strictly maintains to law. Unless you have made an insane outburst that you disagree with your countries laws by rioting, refusing to abide by them, not accepting the benefits that come from these laws, or moving out of the country, you have already showed that you accept what your country has set in stone.

Fifthly, Laws are not based on common sense. Why is pot illegal when alcohol isn't? There is no common sense to back that law up. Many laws are based on an idea of morality or immorality. Don't believe me, go look it up. Where do you think our laws about bribery and how much money a political candidate can accept from a lobbysit comes from? What about FDR and his trust busting? In a capatilistic society corporations should have the ability to just grow and grow and grow, but we deemed it wrong and made a law against it. I never said that some people don't break laws, but you are making a mistake in your definition of terms.

Nobody, you are confusing common sense with concscience. Common sense tells people not eat plastic or hold their breath under water for more than 20 minutes because it is bad for their health. Concscience deems something wrong or right. however, because everybodies conscience differs, societies adopt a set of laws for everybody to abide by. Many of these laws are based off morality or a set of high values and standards, to centralize the conscience. If they weren't then everybody would be allowed to do anything they pleased without consequences. Back to the Charles Manson example. His conscience said it was ok to kill. Our laws didn't, neither did the jury or several people inside the U.S.

Fifthly, your examples of violence, drugs, and other behaviors that break the law only further proves my point. If we didn't believe that a higher set of standards existed, then we wouldn't look at these behaviors as bad. We would just look at them as simple behaviors.

As for factual evidence, do you live in the U.S.? Yes you do. Do you agree with laws of morality, yes you do. Laws about stealing, murder, bribery, slander, lible, and a longer list that I don't wish to mention are laws because we believe that human life is valuable, that a person's own property belongs to only that person, and that bribing someone is wrong. Do laws about slander and lible have to do with common sense? Do our laws about freedom of speech and such have to do with common sense? Hell no. They are based upon a high set of standards that our founding fathers believed citizens of this country, and others all over the world, should have. NOT COMMON SENSE. but a higher set of standards to follow.

Your points help me because you say we have these laws. I know that. And because these laws are based upon the thought that there is a better, more just way to live, not fact or common sense, is why I am right. Only if we didnt have these laws would your point be proven. Why are drugs illegal? Why is suicide illegal? Why is abortion legal? not out of common sense, but because we think that there is a certain value system that people should live up to.

Cory it is interesting to me that you have taken a philosophy course. I have read many philosophies by many philosophers that believed God is knowable through logic and reason to a certain extent. Philosophies I have studied talk a lot about cause and effect. I am a Christian that does not believe the theory of evolution contradicts the belief in a creator God. I view the bible as mainly subjective. I believe evolution is the effect of ongoing creation and not the cause. What do you think?

I believe that if a person believes in God, as I do, then they believe he originally created everything, even philosophy. So why should philosophy and logic not help point to him. I believe evolution in a minute sense must happen. People must be able to change. Animals must be able to change. Why do people in the mountains fill more lung capacity, or is it a bigger lung capacity? Because people change. Slow-twitch muscles verse fast twitch muscles? Because people change and differ. What I don't agree with are the huge claims from an evolutionary side that evolution is the end all and be all of existence. However I think logically and philosphically one can come to a simple understanding that there is a higher being, entity, order, etc. I call that thing God. Can something not exist if everybody lives and acts according to the idea that this power does exist? I would say no, and so would Einstein. I have already laid out in front of everybody why, whether they are agnostic or atheist, live in accordance with the idea that something higher than humans exists. However, what people don't understand about this conclusion is that the existence of the higher power has become an intrinsic acknowledgement through our everyday lives, not an extrinsic one that people public profess.

I may be confusing common sense with conscience, but you are confusing morality with religion. You do not have to believe in a higher power to have morals, and you most certainly don't have to be religious to uphold your moral standards.

And speaking for your laws. Are you saying your theory is only applicable to law abiding countries? There are other societies who dwell in a world with no moral background. Your theory only applies to these countries.

As for 2+2=4. It may be true whether I believe it or not. But you are telling me 2+2=5. And that isn't true whether you believe it or not.

I am not confusing morality with religion. You do not realize that you intrinsically act according to the idea that there is a higher power, order, whatever you want to call whether you want to believe it or not. You name me a society who doesn't have laws or rules, and then you will have a debate. Until then, I claim victory, by evolutionary standards.

However, since you still don't understand, I will continue to explain. You still continue to focus only upon the individual and personal morals that determine such things. The only thing that matters about the individuals are that they abide by social rule, and that they don't have the same morals. You need to take a wider view. Do you believe that there are laws that everybody should follow? Are their laws that you follow? Yes there are. Therefore you act in accordance to a higher power. Because if you didn't, you would think that everybody should govern themselves without the collective aspect of social rule. Especially if you believe in Evolution, because by evolutionary standards there is no uber-human, which I explained before.

Hypothetical using you as an example:

If you think that everybody should follow your morals because yours are superior to other people's, then you would have to prove yourself an uber-human to prove your morals are more superior, which you can't. We aren't at that evolutionary step yet. Since you're not an uber human, those morals you claim as higher than another person's morals can only be so if they came from a higher power than you. Because the societies we live in, mine and yours and kevin's, make laws they deem to be from the highest set of virtues (standards, morals or whatever you call it), even though not all humans believe so, and there are no uber-humans, then those higher set of morals must be coming from somewhere beyond humanity, or else they wouldn't be a higher set of morals. However, since you walk around abiding by those laws that protect the high set of morals, you--by association and action--live in accordance with the fact that a higher power out there exists. And if you didn't, then you would be advocating against these laws, and advocating for anarchy, everybody governs themselves, and there is no right or wrong because each human can decided for his or herself. But you don't You believe there are consequences for actions because not all actions are moral or just, thus further showing your agreement with law and your observance of a higher power, order, being, intrinsically. I hope you understand this better. If anybody does understand this and thinks they can explain it better, please do, or atleast tell me they understand this. When explain this to people face to face I am much better at it.
.

The two plus two thing I can easily show that numbers are simply abstract and therefore only have the meaning the individual puts upon them. My fault, Bad example.

Say society as a whole did abide by the same moral standards, consciously or not, does that mean they believe in god, a higher power, or order?

I could not prove there is a society without laws or rules just as you cannot prove there isn't. Until you can prove to me such your theory is just speculation and debate. I don't believe either of us could completely prove our point. But I guess that's philosophy for you.

My hats off to you for the stress releaving conversation.

(Heh, not meant sarcastically)