Can the existence of God be demonstrated by logic?

[McCulloch]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction
1. There is a God

Can the existence of God be demonstrated by logical deduction?

[dusk]

But in your earlier post you suggested that consciousness emerges from self-reflection. That doesn't make sense to me if you're saying experience comes from consciousness. Babies seem to experience pain, discomfort and hunger from their first hours after birth, but until that moment their world was the womb. They could not have any sense of 'self' until they've developed a sense of 'other.' I think you've got it backwards there: Seems to me it must be because of experience - the various sights and sounds, and growing recognition of sources of food and comfort - that the constants of eyes, body, hunger, fatigue and so on could start being distinguished by an infant from all the other things which are present, but not experienced. A sense of self develops from being the unitary subject of diverse experiences, not vice versa.

Maybe I do have it backwards but I am not convinced I do.
Question is when does the consciousness really come in? We would all agree that most more primitiv life forms that already have something of a brain do not have a consciousness. A Rock that breaks apart on impact shows a reaction, one could say it experiences the impact and it expresses this by shattering. Totally nuts but bear with me.
A child that experiences things but not yet has a self also has a reaction but does it have a conscious one? Do we see anymore than from a robot which could also have some mighty complex processing going on to reach certain emotional reactions but are they conscious.

Do you experience pain that you don't feel? If you get drugged and you have no feeling in your limbs do you experience a burning iron? You don't yet it most of the impulses may still reach your brian they just don't get processed to ever be made aware of in any significant fashion in your consciousness.

Now if we assume my model of a self-reflection on the model of self is what it takes to generate consciousness than a subjective experience is only ever what we both mean when we talk about it, if it gets registered in the consciousness process. One process among others in your brain. Others only work on emotions, on monitoring and regulating entirely unconscious body functions and so on. It is just one process of special self-reflective pattern.

Now this would mean (and I am perfectly aware of that) that a baby that has not yet developed any idea of a self (whatever time that maybe) does not have such subjective experiences. It is not just that they are not remembered when it gets older but that they wouldn't be. Consciousness would be something that developes and is not already there when we have something that seems to experience anything.

It would also mean that the robot (with the AI that does all this processing the same way) indeed is conscious.

but I'd say that programs written to laugh when told a joke, cry out when struck or write soppy poetry when involved in a long term relationship aren't comparable to humour, pain or love

The point is it does have an idea of humor or pain. It doesn't simply mimic what we would react to. It processes just like us certain inputs, word combinations into combinations of meaning and this creates an idea/opinion of funniness. Yet I argue only when it has a self too would it ever register be aware of the emotion and at such a point be entirely indistinguishable from anything we do.


I think looking for subjective experience and consciousness in some special material is the wrong way to go. We also do not expect to find the idea of a perfect circle in some dark unknown force or material. It is the patterns in all the material in this world we look at and from which we form the idea, from which we steal it from and found it on. A circle is static it will always be the same it is simple and trivial. Consciousness/subjectivity which are clearly linked concepts would just be patterns but dynamic ones no different than the idea of a circle yet more complex and much harder to grasp.

I believe I effectively just now really understand what Douglas Hofstdter might have really meant in his book. Though he never laid it out clearly and it almost seems to simple and logical for me to really trust it. I guess I should start a new thread on this.

So one option available to us is to suppose that the 'universe' is basically different from us, and that the apparently unique phenomenon of experience nevertheless arose from it without any particular mystery. The second option is to suppose that reality is basically similar to us - some folk call that 'god,' which I suppose is as good a term as 'universe' - and that our thought-choice is not some illusion or weird anomaly, but genuinely reflects the nature of reality and causality.

I would suggest that the former view is the more dualistic one. Of course many theists try to have it both ways, supposing that the 'universe' is substantially distinct from a 'god' who created it out of nothing, and I agree that such a view seems lacking. Idealism seems the most logical perspective, so far as I have yet discovered, which implies panentheism or (perhaps) pantheism.

Yes I go with the second choice and idealism of sorts.
In Idealism the idea of circle or the idea/pattern of consciousness is somewhat separate but the instances of it are not. The human queue is still a queue but a specific one that doesn't exist on its own. No single consciousness exists away from the brain in which it is. Only the generic idea of consciousness is not bound to any one brain or similarly complex process inhabiting processor.
The strange thing is most Christians I think are idealists and justify some of their believes through it. I think the way they do it is by moving the instances of the generic ideas to the same realm.
I never really understood what to do with panentheism or pantheism? They seem to me rather non theistic. I would guess that most that call anything a theism suppose a god that still is a conscious being of sorts. Yet if consciousness requires an idea of self and processing there is no need to suppose that even something as big and complex as the universe must be conscious. It could be in some ever greater realm unavailable to us but I don't really see the point of talking of a god there.
If the god concept is so loose in pantheism or panentheism then any atheist would also be a pantheist at least.

EduChris has explained how 'thought' is meaningless without choice

In this thread? Where if I may ask lazily without having searched all the pages?

[Mithrae]

But in your earlier post you suggested that consciousness emerges from self-reflection. That doesn't make sense to me if you're saying experience comes from consciousness. Babies seem to experience pain, discomfort and hunger from their first hours after birth, but until that moment their world was the womb. They could not have any sense of 'self' until they've developed a sense of 'other.' I think you've got it backwards there: Seems to me it must be because of experience - the various sights and sounds, and growing recognition of sources of food and comfort - that the constants of eyes, body, hunger, fatigue and so on could start being distinguished by an infant from all the other things which are present, but not experienced. A sense of self develops from being the unitary subject of diverse experiences, not vice versa.

Maybe I do have it backwards but I am not convinced I do.
Question is when does the consciousness really come in? We would all agree that most more primitiv life forms that already have something of a brain do not have a consciousness. A Rock that breaks apart on impact shows a reaction, one could say it experiences the impact and it expresses this by shattering. Totally nuts but bear with me.
A child that experiences things but not yet has a self also has a reaction but does it have a conscious one? Do we see anymore than from a robot which could also have some mighty complex processing going on to reach certain emotional reactions but are they conscious.

I generally use 'consciousness' more or less as a synonym for subjective experience, but some other folk seem not to. I would guess that simpler life-forms with a primative brain probably do have subjective experience. But like the robot, we can't really know.

My view of thoughts/consciousness and the like is that since we can't directly observe them (except in our own minds) we can only infer their presence by analogy from behaviour and structure: People who look like us, were conceived and born in a similar fashion, and behave in ways similar to us probably have similar things going on in the darkness behind their eyes.

An additional view is that the absense of that behaviour and structure shows the absense of thought/consciousness or the like. Far as I can tell it's a fallacy to try to use analogy in reverse like that. (Though, as with your rock example, most all of us do generally presume it.) But those who take that approach seriously generally conclude that thoughts etc. are associated only with brains (somewhat circular) and must therefore be produced by brains (post hoc ergo propter hoc, at least if one supposes that functional brains are a sufficient cause of thought, or a necessary one).

Your view seems to be a third approach, describing a theory of consciousness and using that as the basis for inferring its presence or absence. I'm just not persuaded by that approach I'm afraid, because for starters how could you have a theory of consciousness without already having some means to decide when and where it's present?

Now if we assume my model of a self-reflection on the model of self is what it takes to generate consciousness than a subjective experience is only ever what we both mean when we talk about it, if it gets registered in the consciousness process. One process among others in your brain. Others only work on emotions, on monitoring and regulating entirely unconscious body functions and so on. It is just one process of special self-reflective pattern.

Now this would mean (and I am perfectly aware of that) that a baby that has not yet developed any idea of a self (whatever time that maybe) does not have such subjective experiences. It is not just that they are not remembered when it gets older but that they wouldn't be. Consciousness would be something that developes and is not already there when we have something that seems to experience anything.

It's a very counter-intuitive conclusion. I don't think you've given enough reason to believe that it's reasonable.

It would also mean that the robot (with the AI that does all this processing the same way) indeed is conscious.

but I'd say that programs written to laugh when told a joke, cry out when struck or write soppy poetry when involved in a long term relationship aren't comparable to humour, pain or love

The point is it does have an idea of humor or pain. It doesn't simply mimic what we would react to. It processes just like us certain inputs, word combinations into combinations of meaning and this creates an idea/opinion of funniness. Yet I argue only when it has a self too would it ever register be aware of the emotion and at such a point be entirely indistinguishable from anything we do.

There's plenty of examples in sci-fi of robots which are designed purely as mimics of human behaviour and perhaps appearance (and equivalents in fantasy), which I wouldn't suppose to have consciousness. There's also plenty of other examples of robots or AI programs whose key features (or perhaps unexpected developments) are a capacity for abstraction and learning - whose development and behaviour is not intended to be wholly predictable or human-like. The Oracle and Merovingian in the Matrix series, Data from Star Trek or Kryten from Red Dwarf would be good examples and if they were real I'd probably agree with you in those cases. I can't see any necessary problem with the idea of genuine artificial intelligence, consciousness or even emotions. But it's obviously very hypothetical, and not a good basis for building a theory.

So one option available to us is to suppose that the 'universe' is basically different from us, and that the apparently unique phenomenon of experience nevertheless arose from it without any particular mystery. The second option is to suppose that reality is basically similar to us - some folk call that 'god,' which I suppose is as good a term as 'universe' - and that our thought-choice is not some illusion or weird anomaly, but genuinely reflects the nature of reality and causality.

I would suggest that the former view is the more dualistic one. Of course many theists try to have it both ways, supposing that the 'universe' is substantially distinct from a 'god' who created it out of nothing, and I agree that such a view seems lacking. Idealism seems the most logical perspective, so far as I have yet discovered, which implies panentheism or (perhaps) pantheism.

Yes I go with the second choice and idealism of sorts.
In Idealism the idea of circle or the idea/pattern of consciousness is somewhat separate but the instances of it are not. The human queue is still a queue but a specific one that doesn't exist on its own. No single consciousness exists away from the brain in which it is. Only the generic idea of consciousness is not bound to any one brain or similarly complex process inhabiting processor.
The strange thing is most Christians I think are idealists and justify some of their believes through it. I think the way they do it is by moving the instances of the generic ideas to the same realm.

There's different views which are called 'idealism' - and lets face it, we can't really know the truth of these matters and they're hard enough even to adequately describe and discuss.

I never really understood what to do with panentheism or pantheism? They seem to me rather non theistic. I would guess that most that call anything a theism suppose a god that still is a conscious being of sorts. Yet if consciousness requires an idea of self and processing there is no need to suppose that even something as big and complex as the universe must be conscious. It could be in some ever greater realm unavailable to us but I don't really see the point of talking of a god there.
If the god concept is so loose in pantheism or panentheism then any atheist would also be a pantheist at least.

I imagine most atheists would object to that In post 4 McCulloch suggested that discussion should begin by defining 'god,' but as I responded it seems to me that we'll encounter similar and unnecessary difficulties if we begin any discussion trying to define the nature of reality, whether our term of choice is god, universe or whatever.

If various forms of dualism (mind/body, physical/mental, god/universe and so on) are dubious on face value - as I believe they are - and if it's more reasonable to suppose that our experience reflects reality than being anomalous, that implies that its most reasonable to suppose that thought and choice are basic to the nature and causality of reality. We don't need to use the term 'theism' or 'god' to describe that speculation or tentative conclusion - but they fit and seem to be the simplest shorthand descriptions available.

EduChris has explained how 'thought' is meaningless without choice

In this thread? Where if I may ask lazily without having searched all the pages?

• EduChris wrote:
  The problem for non-theists, in this debate, is how an unconscious and uncomprehending source could ever give rise to consciousness, freedom, self-realization, moral obligation, and so forth. Typically, the non-theist (to the extent she carries her presuppositions out to their logical conclusion) will argue that such notions are illusory, insubstantial, non-efficacious--the absurd and impotent froth on the waves of "purely physical" reality. But at this point, the non-theist undercuts her own agency, which causes her position to end up refuting itself. And even beyond the self-referential incoherence of the non-theist position, non-theists can't actually live their day-to-day lives as though they had no agency.
  
  The irony is that most non-theists like to imagine that they have arrived at their views by means of logic and reason, when in fact their conclusions vacate the very notion of logic and reason.

[dusk]

I can't see any necessary problem with the idea of genuine artificial intelligence, consciousness or even emotions. But it's obviously very hypothetical, and not a good basis for building a theory.

I wouldn't say it is all that hypothetical. We already have system with a lot of heterogenous systems which makes them in some ways way more complex than a brain which seems to be made of very similar algorithms and only derives its complexity from interconnectivity in an for us difficult to dumb down level.
Trying to understand how an AI would work and be designed to be exactly like our mental processing model that is not something we cannot do. Maybe we still lack some tech for making a full scale prototype but that doesn't keep anyone from envisioning the operating system architecture.
Building powerful quantum computers is practically still fairly too big a task but the algorithms, layout, architecture is all stuff that has been done before.
Our modern chips are also designed a few years before the tech is there to actually make them happen. By that time they need to know already how much memory bandwidth they will need and how much the technology will provide to make it efficient, else they need to plan for a wider bus or more caches.

Once we understand the basic meta models of how such a conscious system should or would have to work it also tells us something about how our brain works. Neuro scientist can only very fuzzily map and detect certain things. It is kind of like watching what a computer chip does by looking through a infrared camera and checking where it heats up. If you can only run normal software that tells you really really little except that with certain programs some stuff runs a little hotter than others. In computers we can run benchmark software that only does one thing and nothing else with brains that is more like only general software with a some bias toward one problem.

Understanding the meta model does help and it is only matter of time until we can simulate them and see which come closest to what conscious beings do, or what is really the essential things necessary for consciousness.
Sure you can never know completely "how it feels for the subject" but you can know as much as you can know about any other human that isn't you.

I generally use 'consciousness' more or less as a synonym for subjective experience

I do too but I didn't write the keyword subjective in cases. Often there is causality without subjective experience. It is still experience if it not only affect but has some lasting impression, if there is some learning from it. Doesn't need to be conscious or subjective though. I just needed some word for this when it is not yet conscious. To some sudden things we humans do not react consciously, we react before we experience the sensation. I think we can understand the absence of conscious thought because we can experience things that we never register or register long after we reacted to them. So just because some other being experiences something from our perspective and shows some reaction does not necessarily mean that is a subjective/conscious experience.
I think assuming that it is always there neglects some of our own knowledge.

An additional view is that the absense of that behaviour and structure shows the absense of thought/consciousness or the like. Far as I can tell it's a fallacy to try to use analogy in reverse like that.

If somebody is really drunk and does stupid things we blame it on the alcohol, because we had our own experiences with alcohol. It is not just a reverse analogy it is an inference from our own experience with fleeting consciousness. It is simply more thorough than assuming that anything that ever reacts does so consciously if even we ourselves don't do that.

But those who take that approach seriously generally conclude that thoughts etc. are associated only with brains (somewhat circular) and must therefore be produced by brains (post hoc ergo propter hoc, at least if one supposes that functional brains are a sufficient cause of thought, or a necessary one).

I don't like the only with a brain but yes. I think it is most logically associated with processing of information. We can drug people to tune down certain centers in our brain and less activity does seem to have an effect on pain, spasms and also our conscious experience. If consciousness is not shown to be independent it stands to question why we should assume it is something different.

Your view seems to be a third approach, describing a theory of consciousness and using that as the basis for inferring its presence or absence. I'm just not persuaded by that approach I'm afraid, because for starters how could you have a theory of consciousness without already having some means to decide when and where it's present?

I would say it is a theory of a mental meta model. Yet after modeling the most basic meta model of our mental processing, I wondered how consciousness(or something that would be indistinguishable for any outside thirds party) can not be part of it. So I didn't already have a theory where is is present but I laid out the general model and than thought how an alternative without consciousness would look like. It doesn't say anything about how it feels but that something that should be described as self-awareness (awareness of awareness) is in there unless you put extra limitations in (like some sort of sandboxing, or incompatible heterogenousity in some of the high level details).
I would argue any AI that resembles a similar and complete meta model with no limitations on variable interconnectivity (and equal detail in mental models), would be for us as indistinguishable from a conscious human as any other human.

The only means we have to decide when and where it is present is the same we use when looking at other human beings. There is no better we can do today and we also don't have to do any better as this seems to be sufficient for all our current purposes. Once we can simulate an AI with all these qualities we can study the concept more easily than human beings. It would still not be possible to simple display the inner state of consciousness as it would be an inherent property of a complex system. We could extract mental images or certain approximations of emotions not the conscious experience. It would effectively still be impossible to actually look at the subjective experience but everything surrounding it could be studied in much more detail than today.

Obviously religious people who want there to be some kind of magical substance that carries consciousness (instilled by god) and is only present in human brains would not like the idea, but they can go on for another 200 years denying it just like they deny evolution because they didn't see it happening before their eyes.

The Oracle and Merovingian in the Matrix series, Data from Star Trek or Kryten from Red Dwarf would be good examples and if they were real I'd probably agree with you in those cases. I can't see any necessary problem with the idea of genuine artificial intelligence, consciousness or even emotions. But it's obviously very hypothetical, and not a good basis for building a theory.

I would call it a hypothesis but one that is up to its goals verifiable. As outlined above.
Some goals like experiencing somebody else's consciousness would be inherently impossible according to the way I regard it. As the self cannot be removed from the equation. Any attempt in transplanting it to experience the subjective part exactly the same would be blocked by the fact that it wouldn't be the same person anymore but rather the initial one to experience it. You would end up with some serious schizophrenic condition.
Simple visual memory transfer though could very much be possible for AIs. For humans the representation would be too complex to make sense of it and translate it into what the other can process. I suppose that the coding is rather unique in every human being.

Now if we assume my model of a self-reflection on the model of self is what it takes to generate consciousness than a subjective experience is only ever what we both mean when we talk about it, if it gets registered in the consciousness process. One process among others in your brain. Others only work on emotions, on monitoring and regulating entirely unconscious body functions and so on. It is just one process of special self-reflective pattern.

Now this would mean (and I am perfectly aware of that) that a baby that has not yet developed any idea of a self (whatever time that maybe) does not have such subjective experiences. It is not just that they are not remembered when it gets older but that they wouldn't be. Consciousness would be something that developes and is not already there when we have something that seems to experience anything.

It's a very counter-intuitive conclusion. I don't think you've given enough reason to believe that it's reasonable.

I wouldn't see any part of it as being counter-intuitive. It depends on the point of view. If you don't want to keep looking at it like a black box but understand how the mentality works on such meta level there is only so much possible in accordance with what we already know about our own psychology, neuroscience and information processing.
If you want to look into the black box and propose a model that could account for everything up to schizophrenia you have to model it somehow. even if you add consciousness by means of some magical substance you need for a reasonable model in the black box pin point where it comes in. It needs to be effected at some place, emerge at some place, affect at some place. And this model seems from pure information flow extremely straight forward.
The only non intuitive things is presupposed ideas about certain things from tradition and culture that have no real final foundation. From a psychological perspective and any scientific one I don't see anything particularly counter-intuitive.

It is also as we Germans say "nicht allein auf meinem Mist gewachsen" (didn't grow only from my own rubbish)
as a quick example from google scholar.
The symptoms of schizophrenia can be interpreted as the result of a defect in the mechanism that controls and limits the contents of consciousness. This defect can be understood as excessive self-awareness. Normally most of the complex information processing which is continuously required by even simple acts of perception, language and thought goes on below the level of awareness; whereas in schizophrenic patients some of this processing, or the results of this processing, not in themselves abnormal, become conscious. This excessive awareness can account for the typical symptoms of schizophrenia and explains many of the specific cognitive abnormalities found in schizophrenic patients.--Consciousness, information processing and schizophrenia.

To me it seems this basic model is practically accepted in most science disciplines but simply not discussed by philosophers that want to preserve their black box. The only thing I really added that is that I think it is difficult to imagine a processing brain, computer with all this same capabilities without displaying consciousness on an impossible to distinguish level.
C D Frith

[Jzyehoshua]

Well, since matter can't pop into existence from nowhere, and yet matter exists, even though the tendency of matter is to decay according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, there must therefore be an originator of matter outside the laws of matter and physics. Matter cannot explain matter. Only by positing another dimension like the spiritual can one ultimately explain matter's existence at all. I would argue it more logical to believe in an eternal, spiritual Creator than a magical singularity which popped out of nowhere and where all the laws of science break down anyway. There seems no good explanation to me where such a singularity came from, where the particles needed for a Big Bang came from, or why we don't see little Big Bangs occurring if Big Bangs are possible at all. Matter does not pop into existence out of nowhere, it is not self-existent or eternal.

Furthermore, one cannot ask why there is evil in the world, or question the Bible's mention of "wrong" things without inherently assuming such a thing as right and wrong exists in the first place. And as has been pointed out by Ravi Zacharias, for right and wrong to exist at all, there must be a moral law to the universe. Such a moral law must have been implemented by a moral Lawgiver, and be based on a moral standard - that standard is God. If an atheist claims there is no such thing as right and wrong, they then have no recourse to claim when they are wronged that anything truly has been done to them - they remove their right to complain about evil.

[Artie]

Well, since matter can't pop into existence from nowhere

Yes it does. http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/ ... thing.html

Furthermore, one cannot ask why there is evil in the world, or question the Bible's mention of "wrong" things without inherently assuming such a thing as right and wrong exists in the first place. And as has been pointed out by Ravi Zacharias, for right and wrong to exist at all, there must be a moral law to the universe. Such a moral law must have been implemented by a moral Lawgiver

Nonsense. Morality is a result of evolution.

1. Organisms started cooperating.
2. Cooperating organisms enhanced their chances of survival.
3. Cooperation evolved a common code of conduct called morals such as the Golden Rule to ensure best possible cooperation and therefore better chances of survival.
4. People incorporated these morals into judicial systems and religions.
5. Behave morally or go to jail or go to hell. Exactly the same principle.
6. Some made up religions played on the survival instinct and said behave nicely and live forever, behave badly and burn forever.
7. Religion is simply one way for evolution to try to ensure people behave morally.

[Jzyehoshua]

Well, since matter can't pop into existence from nowhere

Yes it does. http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/ ... thing.html

Furthermore, one cannot ask why there is evil in the world, or question the Bible's mention of "wrong" things without inherently assuming such a thing as right and wrong exists in the first place. And as has been pointed out by Ravi Zacharias, for right and wrong to exist at all, there must be a moral law to the universe. Such a moral law must have been implemented by a moral Lawgiver

Nonsense. Morality is a result of evolution.

1. Organisms started cooperating.
2. Cooperating organisms enhanced their chances of survival.
3. Cooperation evolved a common code of conduct called morals such as the Golden Rule to ensure best possible cooperation and therefore better chances of survival.
4. People incorporated these morals into judicial systems and religions.
5. Behave morally or go to jail or go to hell. Exactly the same principle.
6. Some made up religions played on the survival instinct and said behave nicely and live forever, behave badly and burn forever.
7. Religion is simply one way for evolution to try to ensure people behave morally.

So by your definition, absolute right and wrong, good and evil, do not truly exist as anything substantial or defined, correct? They are simply what humans make of them and have evolved over long periods as intangible concepts, correct?

So logically, what is your reason for not doing a certain evil thing to others, then? Why should people not do such things? Why would you say a person is not just doing what's right for them, or engaging in "survival of the fittest"? What is your justification for calling any specific action "wrong", ultimately?

Your reasoning appears to be that the consequence is "go to jail" in which case your reasoning would be "don't get caught", right? Ultimately, how moral can the reasoning of atheists be once removing God from the equation? How can they claim any true morality exists at all with regards to treating others fairly, and how can they criticize others who treat them wrong if they don't believe true right and wrong exist at all?

[Artie]

So by your definition, absolute right and wrong, good and evil, do not truly exist as anything substantial or defined, correct? They are simply what humans make of them and have evolved over long periods as intangible concepts, correct?

What is right is what benefits the individual, the society and by extention all of humanity. Wrong is what doesn't benefit the individual, the society and by extention all of humanity.

So logically, what is your reason for not doing a certain evil thing to others, then?

It doesn't benefit me, others or by extention the human race.

Why should people not do such things?

It doesn't benefit them, others or by extention the human race.

Why would you say a person is not just doing what's right for them, or engaging in "survival of the fittest"?

Because the fittest in a social context is the one who does things that benefit themselves, others and by extention the whole human race.

What is your justification for calling any specific action "wrong", ultimately?

That it doesn't benefit the individual, the society and the human race as a whole and that it goes against logic, reason and common sense.

Your reasoning appears to be that the consequence is "go to jail" in which case your reasoning would be "don't get caught", right?

Nope. If you do something for which you risk getting "caught" that act would not benefit yourself, your society and by extention the human race and would therefore be wrong.

Ultimately, how moral can the reasoning of atheists be once removing God from the equation?

Atheists don't remove God from the equation. Christians have to put a non-existent God in because they don't use logic, reason and common sense to understand how and why morals developed and why we should be moral. So evolution evolved religion to stop these people being immoral by making up an authority figure with enough power behind him to be able to command these people to be moral baiting with heaven and threatening with hell. Same principle as the justice system evolved for the same reason.

How can they claim any true morality exists at all with regards to treating others fairly, and how can they criticize others who treat them wrong if they don't believe true right and wrong exist at all?

Right is what benefits the individual, the society and humanity as a whole. Wrong is the opposite.

[Jzyehoshua]

So by your definition, absolute right and wrong, good and evil, do not truly exist as anything substantial or defined, correct? They are simply what humans make of them and have evolved over long periods as intangible concepts, correct?

What is right is what benefits the individual, the society and by extention all of humanity. Wrong is what doesn't benefit the individual, the society and by extention all of humanity.

Still, I don't know that most people are naturally society-serving sorts of people, or humanity-serving. Which means it will likely come down to just serving the individual, namely themselves, under such a belief, right?

Atheists don't remove God from the equation. Christians have to put a non-existent God in because they don't use logic, reason and common sense to understand how and why morals developed and why we should be moral. So evolution evolved religion to stop these people being immoral by making up an authority figure with enough power behind him to be able to command these people to be moral baiting with heaven and threatening with hell. Same principle as the justice system evolved for the same reason.

That's one theory. But how can "evolution [evolve] religion"? What process is it that would make this natural evolution of religion occur? People are naturally immoral. Wouldn't they more naturally evolve atheism, so they could do what they want without consequence? As for authority figures, they exist even in atheistic countries like China, Russia, Cuba, and North Korea - in such cases, the rulers themselves hold themselves up as deities. This could also be seen in WWII-era Japan. I'm not sure I understand why this evolution of religion would be inclined to occur at all.

How can they claim any true morality exists at all with regards to treating others fairly, and how can they criticize others who treat them wrong if they don't believe true right and wrong exist at all?

Right is what benefits the individual, the society and humanity as a whole. Wrong is the opposite.

So if a society like Hitler's decided it was in the society's best interests to purge a certain demographic, what then would make that wrong? Obviously it is wrong, but under atheistic thinking, what would be the rationale in calling that wrong?

[Artie]

Still, I don't know that most people are naturally society-serving sorts of people, or humanity-serving. Which means it will likely come down to just serving the individual, namely themselves, under such a belief, right?

It's not a belief. It's called reality. I don't know why Christians have such trouble understanding that you and your community and the whole human race are interdependent on each other. If it's good for you and your community and the whole human race it's good. If you do something that in the short term only benefits you and not your society it is wrong simply because it doesn't benefit society too. It will automatically become detrimental to you because people will notice you only care about yourself and will be reluctant to cooperate with you. Your selfishness will be detrimental to yourself and everybody else. So evolution works towards cooperation and away from selfishness and egotism. It's not like in Christianity where your whole focus is on getting yourself to Heaven and helping others is just a means to that end. We do things because we understand what is moral and why it's good for everybody to be moral.

That's one theory. But how can "evolution [evolve] religion"? What process is it that would make this natural evolution of religion occur?

Why do you ask the same questions over and over? I have answered that several times. Some people are immoral. Those are the ones who has to have a God tell them what is moral or not. Other people who understand how morality developed are moral because they understand what morality is and why it developed and why it is important to be moral. Christians need Jesus to tell them what is right and wrong. Those are the immoral people. Mimicking Jesus or obeying Jesus doesn't make anyone a moral person. Moral people use logic, reason and common sense and understand what is moral and act in the best interest of themselves and their society.

Wouldn't they more naturally evolve atheism, so they could do what they want without consequence?

I just explained this to you in a previous post. Please read it again. Atheists understand how morality developed and why it is important to be moral. "What is right is what benefits the individual, the society and by extention all of humanity. Wrong is what doesn't benefit the individual, the society and by extention all of humanity." Atheists understand that the consequence of not behaving morally is that it's detrimental to the individual, society and by extention the human race since we are all interconnected. Those are the consequences of not behaving morally. Since you can't use logic, reason and common sense and knowledge of how morality developed you don't understand this. Therefore we have religion. In religion you don't have to understand morality, you just do what your god tells you in the hopes of going to Heaven and you might behave in a moral way in the same way people who actually are moral people and understand morality behave.

As for authority figures, they exist even in atheistic countries like China, Russia, Cuba, and North Korea - in such cases, the rulers themselves hold themselves up as deities. This could also be seen in WWII-era Japan. I'm not sure I understand why this evolution of religion would be inclined to occur at all.

Because other people not just Christians who can't use logic, reason and common sense to understand what's right and wrong or how morality developed or what morality is need authority figures to tell them what's right and wrong just like you need your god.

So if a society like Hitler's decided it was in the society's best interests to purge a certain demographic, what then would make that wrong?

It wouldn't benefit that demographic or the human race as a whole and as we saw it didn't benefit Hitler, Germany or the whole human race as a whole. So it was wrong.

[Jzyehoshua]

Still, I don't know that most people are naturally society-serving sorts of people, or humanity-serving. Which means it will likely come down to just serving the individual, namely themselves, under such a belief, right?

It's not a belief. It's called reality. I don't know why Christians have such trouble understanding that you and your community and the whole human race are interdependent on each other. If it's good for you and your community and the whole human race it's good. If you do something that in the short term only benefits you and not your society it is wrong simply because it doesn't benefit society too. It will automatically become detrimental to you because people will notice you only care about yourself and will be reluctant to cooperate with you. Your selfishness will be detrimental to yourself and everybody else. So evolution works towards cooperation and away from selfishness and egotism. It's not like in Christianity where your whole focus is on getting yourself to Heaven and helping others is just a means to that end. We do things because we understand what is moral and why it's good for everybody to be moral.[/quote]

But in the end it all comes down to an ultimately selfish morality apart from a belief in God - that's what I'm getting at. You said it yourself: "It will automatically become detrimental to you because people will notice you only care about yourself and will be reluctant to cooperate with you." Such morality will ultimately focus only on one's own good rather than others, and do good only for superficial purposes, to be noticed, and avoid doing bad likewise, only to avoid getting caught or punished.

I don't see Christianity that way. I see it as a call to love others unconditionally because God loved us that way. I see it as a call to do good for the sake of enjoying doing good. I see it as a call to do what's right because we are made new people, born again, who have natures that want to do what's right and enjoy it. I see it as a call to care about people for who they are rather than societal rank or external factors like Martin Luther King Jr. said, looking past the superficial. The book of James criticizes looking at outward appearance, as did Jesus. I see the New Testament as a beautiful call for people to look past outward appearance, and the lone, good inspiration of any religion to do so, contrary to what else the world teaches.

That's one theory. But how can "evolution [evolve] religion"? What process is it that would make this natural evolution of religion occur?

Why do you ask the same questions over and over? I have answered that several times. Some people are immoral. Those are the ones who has to have a God tell them what is moral or not. Other people who understand how morality developed are moral because they understand what morality is and why it developed and why it is important to be moral. Christians need Jesus to tell them what is right and wrong. Those are the immoral people. Mimicking Jesus or obeying Jesus doesn't make anyone a moral person. Moral people use logic, reason and common sense and understand what is moral and act in the best interest of themselves and their society.

Wouldn't they more naturally evolve atheism, so they could do what they want without consequence?

I just explained this to you in a previous post. Please read it again. Atheists understand how morality developed and why it is important to be moral. "What is right is what benefits the individual, the society and by extention all of humanity. Wrong is what doesn't benefit the individual, the society and by extention all of humanity." Atheists understand that the consequence of not behaving morally is that it's detrimental to the individual, society and by extention the human race since we are all interconnected. Those are the consequences of not behaving morally. Since you can't use logic, reason and common sense and knowledge of how morality developed you don't understand this. Therefore we have religion. In religion you don't have to understand morality, you just do what your god tells you in the hopes of going to Heaven and you might behave in a moral way in the same way people who actually are moral people and understand morality behave.[/quote]

Sorry if I'm frustrating you, it's not my intention.

What I'm getting at though is how do societal constructs like morality "evolve" anyway? It just seems to me like atheists tend to look at everything through an evolutionary mindset, that everything evolves the way microevolution works, over slow gradual periods into greater complexity or refinement. But at the heart of this is an assumption that a process if left to itself will just gradually develop something complex, as though guided by an unseen hand.

So what I'm getting at, I guess, is whether there's empirical evidence for how religion as a societal construct can develop like this, or even would develop. Because I'm not sure why it would or should develop that way. As a means of population control for morality? Then you must ask why humans or society would want to be moral. Again, I think governments like China can exist which construct order and governance without religion. I'm not convinced that's the answer to why religion as a concept would be evolved by society.

So what I'm trying to figure out is why society as a whole would evolve religion as a concept, especially one that tells people to live to a higher standard like the Bible. Why would people want to be held accountable and told to do what they don't want to, and not to do what they want to? Especially specific things like those in the Mosaic Law?

So if a society like Hitler's decided it was in the society's best interests to purge a certain demographic, what then would make that wrong?

It wouldn't benefit that demographic or the human race as a whole and as we saw it didn't benefit Hitler, Germany or the whole human race as a whole. So it was wrong.[/quote]

Actually, Nazi Germany did that because it did benefit Germany, the Jews held a lot of the wealth and by demonizing them he took over the wealth. By declaring war on other countries he got Germany out of their depression and poverty, and made a lot of his citizens happy (the ones he wasn't murdering anyway). It's a good thing the allied powers stopped him or he'd have gotten away with it. My concern is that that could be justified however under a purely self-interested morality.