I think the best explanation for intelligence (note that this isn't a religious or dogmatic position) is that intelligence and consciousness is an emergent property of networks. I don't see any need for intelligence to be given by some higher power, and I don't see a need for something akin to a soul.

Your second argument is just dumb. Love/hate or good/evil don't make sense to those who don't believe? Really? You think that? It seems like I have a better understanding of love than you do since you've said a few times you don't understand it as an emotion.

Ok, so you think it comes from the matter then?



I admit that I exaggerated a little, cuz everyone has a diffuse notion of what love and good is. However, the supreme good and what is right or wrong don't make any sense for those who don't belive, just what is most pleasant to me. If God does not exist, then everything is allowed, even killing someone, if my personal whim sends.

But let's go back to the notion of love. Love is an act of the volition, not an emotion. Ofc it comes with emotions oftentimes, cuz we are just one thing. However, I can have acts of love without feeling anything. Imagine a person bathing his sick old mother: he may even feel disgust, but it is an act of love, cuz love is an act of volition, not an emotion.

This post was edited by Marcelorr on Jun 14 2020 03:31pm

Please take the time to read this first post and vote in the poll if you haven't yet.

"Comes from" is a bit vague. I think it is an emergent property of matter.

If God exists you just move the problem from "if my personal whim sends" to "if God's personal whim sends". If you value the bible, look no further than the bible where God commands genocide. You said that even killing someone is allowed, well, God commands killing thousands in the bible. So why in the world are you trying to use killing somebody as something that would be allowed without God, when it is commanded by God in the reference you value most?

Okay, so you think love is an act. That pretty much ruins your point, because then hate is not the absence of love, since me not doing the "love in action" is not hate. You've talked yourself around in circles to avoid the point, that if a first mover is everything in essence then it is also the essence of fundamentally contradictory attributes.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 14 2020 04:11pm

Ok, as you wish. So you think the matter is the source of everything? My intelligence, my desires, even the love I have for my mother, for example, is "an emergent propety of matter"?



I won't talk about bible now cuz it would get away from our main subject. What I can tell you is that a christian believes that a human being killing another human being for a reason that is not self-defense is wrong, while the word "wrong" does not mean anything to an atheist.



When I say that God is Love, it means that God is the being who loves fully.
What is love?
Love is to want the good to the object of this action.
What is good?
Good is something achieving the goal for which it was done.
What is that goal?
The plans of God for it: for us, it is to be in union with Him in heaven.
What is evil?
Evil is the absence of God, simply. I don't see where the contradiction is.

This post was edited by Marcelorr on Jun 14 2020 05:40pm

I think that if we took your brain, copied it atom by atom, and removed your current brain and placed the new copy in it, it would be indistinguishable from your current state. It would have all your memories and desires and be identical to "you" in every way. Your consciousness is the result of the network of neurons in your brain, and your intelligence emerges from that network as well.

A Christian does not believe that a human killing a human for reasons other than self defense is wrong. A Christian believes if God tells you to kill, then you kill, regardless of self defense. Wrong does not become more meaningful because you defined it as "things God doesn't want you to do" instead of any other definition.

God is a being who loves fully? So now love is back to being an emotion? You are oscillating between love being a type of action and love being an emotion when it suites your argument. You don't see the contradiction because you are moving the goalposts.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 14 2020 05:54pm

Ok, so I suppose you don't believe in your personal freedom either, right? Cuz, if matter governs everything, the set of differential equations that describe it will dictate what you are going to do at each moment. Do you believe in this, that you have no freedom?



God is our moral reference, because He made us, so He knows how we work. Morality is nothing more than an "instruction manual", made by the author of this "machine", which is God, so that we can be fully happy. If u don't have a moral reference, than there is not a right or wrong: morality becomes just a social contract so there is no social chaos, but when no one is looking, I will do whatever I want.



Why this phrase "God is a being who loves fully" turns love into an emotion?

This post was edited by Marcelorr on Jun 14 2020 06:39pm

Depending on how you define "personal freedom" the answer ranges from no to maybe. We know that physical things have effects on us, like if I inject you with a bunch of adrenaline no , but in more loose terms it's hard to say. There's the idea of libertarian free will which is "the capacity to have done otherwise", which is not possible to disprove or prove. I think it comes down to whether there is a true element of randomness in our neuronal firing. No, quantum mechanics does not introduce this to any meaningful degree, I have a degree in computational chemistry so I'm just gonna nip that in the butt right there.

God is only your moral reference if you define your moral reference that way. There is no physical test we can do to determine if you have made the appropriate choice for moral reference, it is just how you define it. Defining it as "what God wants" is just as arbitrary as defining it as "what I want". Personally I define it as "providing the greatest standard of life for the most people while maximizing the choices they can make" but I'm not going to tell you that I'm objectively right, because there is no objective test for moral questions. Even Christians don't agree on moral questions despite supposedly getting their information from the same source.

It is inherent in the way the statement is set up. If love is an action you would say "God is a being who always does love" or something of the like. You don't say "God is a being who jumps fully". It doesn't make sense.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 14 2020 07:31pm

Freedom I understand as the capacity to choice. If matter governs everything, then there is no freedom: the set of differential equations given by the laws of physics will give the answer of what you are going to do at each moment. I think you need a lot of faith to believe that there is no freedom, as I experience my own freedom all the time.



No, because God made you and you didn't make yourself. So God knows how you work better than you, buddy.



Why should u do that? Maximize your own standard of life and fuck the others (I don't think like that, just playing the devil's advocate).



This would be reason for another long discussion, but, in short, christians should have unity. Unfortunately, there are Christians separated from the true church of Christ, which he founded 2020 years ago.



I don't see it that way, but ok... lol. I maintain my position that love is definitely not an emotion, although it may come with them.

Matter can have freedom as an emergent property if that matters motions is not deterministic. I'm not swayed either way, but we are at least not totally free since purely physical factors limits what we can perceive and how we act.

If God made us that does not mean we are bound to his moral compass.

Why would I maximize my own standard of life over others? If, as you say, there are no morals without God, then that means there's no inherent benefit to maximizing my own well being or others well being. So saying "help yourself and fuck others" is just as ridiculous. Personally I don't get joy out of fucking over other people. Humans are social creatures and we work best in groups.

Your "they separated from the true church" is just a rehash of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Go ask 50 people if love is an emotion. I guarantee 50 out of 50 will tell you that it is, and literally every dictionary definition of love lists love as an emotion. You're just trying to use the love conversation to side step that if the first mover is everything in essence then it must embody contradictory things simultaneously. Regardless, that doesn't really matter. "Being everything in essence" is garbage at it's core. Heat is an emergent property of the movement of atoms. Something does not have to "be heat in essence" to cause heat, it just has to result in motion.