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?

[Jzyehoshua]

Is there really any value at all to believe in an ideal when the reality is that there is no ideal?

You can for example believe that you can improve something even though you might not achieve perfection?

Why strive toward perfection (regardless of how one determines right or wrong) if there is nothing perfect to ascribe to?

Because you can strive to improve things even though you might not achieve perfection?

The fact that we are more than the selfish desires of our genes (surviving as the fittest, propagating our own offspring), that we can choose to sacrifice our own well-being for the sake of others is contrary to any natural process that I am aware of.

You may not understand it but I'm going to try to explain it to you one more time. If you don't understand it this time I'm afraid the problem lies with you.

1. Organisms started cooperating.
2. Cooperating organisms enhanced their chances of survival.
3. Cooperation evolved a common code of conduct called morals which ensure best possible cooperation and therefore best chances of survival for the community.
4. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked.
5. The vervet monkey giving the alarm call might be killed by the predator because it drew attention to itself, but all the rest would have time to escape.
6. The survival of the many is "more important" for evolution than survival of the one because evolution evolves populations and not single individuals.
7. Since more monkeys employing this tactic survived than those who didn't the tactic of self-sacrifice spread.
8. How come Christians have to be explained something that even vervet monkeys understand instinctively?

Hmm... actually, concerning point 7, I don't think many monkeys employing that strategy would survive at all.

[Artie]

1. Organisms started cooperating.
2. Cooperating organisms enhanced their chances of survival.
3. Cooperation evolved a common code of conduct called morals which ensure best possible cooperation and therefore best chances of survival for the community.
4. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked.
5. The vervet monkey giving the alarm call might be killed by the predator because it drew attention to itself, but all the rest would have time to escape.
6. The survival of the many is "more important" for evolution than survival of the one because evolution evolves populations and not single individuals.
7. Since more monkeys employing this tactic survived than those who didn't the tactic of self-sacrifice spread.
8. How come Christians have to be explained something that even vervet monkeys understand instinctively?

Hmm... actually, concerning point 7, I don't think many monkeys employing that strategy would survive at all.

1. You have two flocks with twenty individuals each,
2. In one flock the one who notices a predator calls out.
3. The one who yells might survive or not but the rest would run and survive.
4. In the other flock nobody warns but the one who spots the predator just runs. The predator might or might not catch him.
5. Since the rest are unaware of the predator the predator may catch others too.
6. Over time more individuals in the flock with no callers are dead than in the flock with callers.
7. In the end you end up with flocks with callers only.

[jimvansage]

So you think nature teaches us that "no greater love hath a man than that he should lay down his life for his friends"?
Sorry, that's a rhetorical question.
I might make the point that those words were written 2000 years ago, before mankind had an understanding of evolution.
So if society had to evolve to reach that understanding of cooperation, but a moral system was in existence beforehand (out of sync with the rest of humanity) then humanity at that time could not have been the source of it.

But all you are doing is finding a behavior in nature that you personally value (or you say all should objectively value) and esteeming it above contrary behavior - for what reason?
Many animals live solitary lives with no concern for other members of their species.
Perhaps if a zombie apocalypse arises, we might prefer to emulate these creatures: then it's every man for himself.

There are two types of behavior, two choices one could make.
Animals and people exhibit both kinds of behavior.
Which should be valued?

Objectively, what is the difference whether a man kills either a fox and a child of equal mass?
His own child or another man's child?
His son or his daughter?
His elder or younger son?

[Artie]

So you think nature teaches us that "no greater love hath a man than that he should lay down his life for his friends"?

Yes. Or "no greater love hath a vervet monkey than that he should lay down his life for his friends." It is simply an evolutionary trait that ensures the survival of as many individuals as possible in a community.

Sorry, that's a rhetorical question.

Oh.

I might make the point that those words were written 2000 years ago, before mankind had an understanding of evolution.

Of course. Since vervet monkeys had already evolved this behavior moral people also valued the same behavior.

So if society had to evolve to reach that understanding of cooperation, but a moral system was in existence beforehand (out of sync with the rest of humanity) then humanity at that time could not have been the source of it.

Not sure what you mean.

But all you are doing is finding a behavior in nature that you personally value (or you say all should objectively value) and esteeming it above contrary behavior - for what reason?

We value it simply because we are descendants of those who survived because of that behavior. It's programmed into us to value it because that ensures further survival of as many as possible.

Many animals live solitary lives with no concern for other members of their species.

True. Morals cooperation evolved applies to cooperating organisms.

Perhaps if a zombie apocalypse arises, we might prefer to emulate these creatures: then it's every man for himself.

Those who cooperated would have better chances of survival.

There are two types of behavior, two choices one could make.
Animals and people exhibit both kinds of behavior.
Which should be valued?

?

Objectively, what is the difference whether a man kills either a fox and a child of equal mass?
His own child or another man's child?
His son or his daughter?
His elder or younger son?

?

[dusk]

Lead by example - you hit the nail on the head there.

Is there really any value at all to believe in an ideal when the reality is that there is no ideal?
Why strive toward perfection (regardless of how one determines right or wrong) if there is nothing perfect to ascribe to?

Good question. That is the core of the practical side. Theoretically the ideal won't become more objectively real if you strongly believe in it, so convincing oneself into believing into absolutes that do not really exist won't change reality just ones own perception of it. Undoubtedly something that happened a lot and some philosophers argued it to be essential and necessary. As in even if you know its isn't real you have to believe in it. To a certain degree I would even agree to that, but I think some assertions forsake too much intellectual honesty and result in endless cognitive dissonance ponderings. You can and you should dream but you should not forget when you dream and when you are wake either IMHO.

Philosophically to the subject ideals are real. If I listen to a beautiful classical music piece, its beauty and harmony is still real and not imaginary to me. It is not something that is objectively beautiful though. Other people have totally different perceptions when they hear the same piece. Some may be entirely indifferent towards it.
Subjectively an ideal may be entirely real to me but that doesn't make it objectively real. In my opinion it is a categorical mistake to even talk about certain things to become objectively real. (Some philosophies disagree)
If I say being respectful is good, I mean I perceive it as something good. If there are 30 people that agree with me , we share those same ideals but that doesn't instantiate them as independent moral absolutes. If all of us disappear and the rest have a different opinion about respect, the goodness of it is gone too.

For me (as I am not a dualist and think dualism to be incoherent) the morality of actions only exists within the context of social structures and results in actualization from the goals, ideals & wants of the individuals. It does not exist independently like IMO a mind will not work if you remove oxygen from the brain.

I also argue that I don't need more than to say that respect is something valuable to me. I subjectively perceive it as good, because I subjectively despise an alternative society where respect has no value at all. The ultimate goal for each individual is to surround oneself with enough like minded or at least people that share or tolerate similar values such that one gets the protection, peace of mind, helping hand, appriciation,... one desires.
The UN Charta sort of tries to create an environment that can make as much people as possible happy. While others in the past and today thought the best goal is to convince and force ones own ideals on everyone else, so as to shape it to ones own interests. The difference again is just how much one values freedom and how pragmatic one is towards the same goal of ultimately wanting the closest to subjective perfection environment.

The fact that we are more than the selfish desires of our genes (surviving as the fittest, propagating our own offspring), that we can choose to sacrifice our own well-being for the sake of others is contrary to any natural process that I am aware of.

I think others responded to that. I would just say it is the usual very short sighted argument of certain religious people. Bees also sacrifice themselves and are considered quite stupid individually. The natural process is to survive and bring about new generations that are fit to reproduce again. Whatever helps make this more efficient is not contrary to the process. Humans wearing clothes in cold weather isn't some biological natural thing but according to the process extremely beneficial. Truly unnatural is mass murder and suicide without making any impact. If somebody tried to nuke the entire planet and poison everybody that remains that would quite effectively make our species unfit and go extinct.

I may never be able to prove to anyone that anything supernatural exists:
but it's truth value, by your reasoning, does not matter if it is valued
if nothing is absolutely wrong, it is perfectly acceptable to believe that there are absolutist moral values and live by them

The rules as you call it, may not exist, but why not follow them?
Why not believe them if the only alternative is "do what thou wilt"?

In addition to what I wrote above I would want to point out that it should be important why we believe those rules. Do we only do it because somebody told us and we are too lazy to question them or do we see some actual merit in them.
Ultimately yes. History more than adequately proves that truth is one of the last things that matter. To me truth is of itself a good thing because it makes many things harder and forces people to have more coherent world views.
You can make up all kinds of nonsense about jews, black people, gays, lesbians, sick people, ghosts, haunted people, .... and many people do but dangerous things get when they find gullible fools who never question and take things at face value, because people telling them what is true is what they are used to. All these people need is to see something in the authority they like and later they entirely forget and ignore how hypocritical or plain wrong some of their positions are, because to them their positions are THE objective TRUTH and all others just to blind to see them.

It makes a difference if I know that some of my values I believe in and hold up because I the subject wants it so or because I believe them to be objectively true (of which I somehow convinced myself). It changes how I approach other positions and can treat others without feeling hypocritical. It also changes how they can and will treat me in a society that champions the absolute and wants to marginalize relativity.
Those that prefer conformity and hate the variety and uncertainty in individuality see it differently. I from my personal subjective convictions don't want to live in the Ayatollah's Iran. I would run as far as I can.

[jimvansage]

For the sake of survival, you don't have to outrun the bear, just your friend.
One could trip their friend, or incapacitate him in some way in the hope that the bear eats him and you can escape [Yes, it seems like I'm getting a lot of my analogies from the Walking Dead]
One could just as easily choose (allowing free will) to fall back and sacrifice himself so that his friend could escape.
Whether we see this behavior in animals or not, and though it is an extreme situation, how would you determine which action is moral or immoral?

I guess I don't consider myself "Absolutist" in the strictest sense. There are certain ethical issues (remember, this is strictly from a Christian viewpoint) that one has to make up their own mind and reason out for themselves.
Vegetarian vegan, or carnivore?
Pacifism or justified warfare?
I'm not opening them up to debate, because as far as I'm concerned they are matters of opinion.
It's like debating whether one should stand through a church service or sit - culture typically defines certain aspects of what people do.

[Artie]

For the sake of survival, you don't have to outrun the bear, just your friend. One could trip their friend, or incapacitate him in some way in the hope that the bear eats him and you can escape [Yes, it seems like I'm getting a lot of my analogies from the Walking Dead]

Except then I might lose the friend in which case I might lose a lifetime of help and support. And I would lose the respect and help and support from everybody else which would be very detrimental to me in the long run.

One could just as easily choose (allowing free will) to fall back and sacrifice himself so that his friend could escape.

Which would be the moral thing to do if there was any chance at all for both to get out alive.

Whether we see this behavior in animals or not, and though it is an extreme situation, how would you determine which action is moral or immoral?

Simply the action which has the best chance of saving both of us. If saving both of us was not possible it just depends on a million variables. Who's got family for instance.

Vegetarian vegan, or carnivore?
Pacifism or justified warfare?
I'm not opening them up to debate, because as far as I'm concerned they are matters of opinion.
It's like debating whether one should stand through a church service or sit - culture typically defines certain aspects of what people do.

Yepp. As long is it doesn't go against logic, reason and common sense and the Golden Rule and empathy and compassion and conscience and altruism etc etc people can do what they like.

[dusk]

In general removing all social context from a situation and inverting interdependence makes it impossible to make any moral statement from within the situation. Two sharks where one eats the other aren't immoral. If the two people are the last on the planet and reduce their goals to just survive one might save oneself. The individual judgement would depend on if they want to just survive or live. Emotional factors would factor in one might not think it is worth surviving when one is all alone and thus conclude murder is bad. One might travel many days together hunted by bears and wouldn't like to have his throat slit at night.
Often for us people the non selfish action is moral because it serves the other and strengthens trust when dependent of each other. Incapacitating the other is therefore immoral because it is selfish and destroys trust.

It being immoral may not keep somebody from doing it. Oftentimes people act selfish but when they just don't care about being moral. Nobody is ultimately forced to follow it. The community demands a social code. Morality emerges out of the community has a value in it. Nobody needs to feel part of the community. Some people want to be sharks.

Except then I might lose the friend in which case I might lose a lifetime of help and support. And I would lose the respect and help and support from everybody else which would be very detrimental to me in the long run.

In addition to that you might loose respect from yourself.

I guess I don't consider myself "Absolutist" in the strictest sense. There are certain ethical issues (remember, this is strictly from a Christian viewpoint) that one has to make up their own mind and reason out for themselves.

Absolutist is one who justifies some moral as just so. Because an authority or a book said so, without questioning or basing the validity of the statement on conceivable reasons of why the authority, author, ... said an action is immoral. Absolutist generally think morality is independent of the context in which it emerges.

Case eating kosher meat for jews. There used to be healthy reasons why it was a sensible rule. Positing non kosher food as immoral today is still stupid, because all those justifications don't exist anymore. Today eating kosher is a statement of cultural heritage not a moral act.
For an orthodox Jew it is simply immoral though and he will chastise his children.

You mention vegetarian or carnivore. The Muslims don't eat pork, the Hindus no cows and a religion might just define being a carnivore as immoral. Most likely we don't have any big one such because people like meat too much, ergo they are unlikely to start such ideas and have a hard time converting people to their cause.

Now I am pretty sure you agree that those are ridiculous as moral absolutes. Yet philosophically it is not coherent to be an absolutist on some issues when regarding this Muslim reasoning as wrong. Simply drawing a line in the sand and saying left is fair game, right is not, is IMO just not consistent.
It is only trying to simplify the important (to you) issues and closing them for debate. As I said from a practical view point may be reasonable, though with its own problems, but from a theoretical and philosophical view point I think it is intellectually dishonest and incoherent.

[jimvansage]

I am not an absolutist then. I think the context has a lot to do with morality. Questioning morality is fine with me.

"There used to be healthy reasons why it was a sensible rule. Positing non kosher food as immoral today is still stupid, because all those justifications don't exist anymore Today eating kosher is a statement of cultural heritage not a moral act"
Wonder where they got the idea that certain things might not be healthy.

But if morality is not based blindly on religious authority, then there's no dishonesty about it.

[jimvansage]

New thoughts:

If morality is based on animal behavior, then morality is still subjective in every case; because just as some humans think any behavior is immoral so do many others say the opposite, as some humans indulge in those behaviors and some don't, so some animals behave in a certain way, while others do not.

If our basis for our morality is animal behavior, then genetic engineering and human cloning are neither moral or immoral because there is no precedent in nature (or perhaps such is immoral because there is no precedent in nature, but that would make human reasoning immoral simply because there is no precedent in nature).