
Originally Posted by
NJSC
I take no offense in your stance and I applaud the maturity that you have been presenting in the conversation.
First thing to consider is you are willing to refute the idea of a supreme being based completely on you not seeing any evidence. But at the same time you ascribe to the belief in a soul which just appeared through evolution. Your support of this is us having feelings and emotion, but do not inferior animals also have this soul? Any dog lover will tell you that their dog has feelings. You shout at a dog, they are sad. You come home from a long day, and your dog obviously missed you and is excited that you are home. So based on your argument dogs then also have souls, but at what point during the evolutionary period did dogs receive that? You get the point. The evolutionary theory also is based on genetic mutations which are then able to make a specific individual stronger, faster, sexier, etc. So a "soul" would then have no evolutionary benefit and therefore based on it's own argument would not propel a species further along the evolutionary spectrum. So based on the evolutionary theory there would be no souls.
The idea that you do believe in good and evil in people but only by chemical reactions in the brain is in itself an oxymoron. The idea of good is that there is an outside standard which people hold themselves and others accountable for. If you simply attribute this to chemical reactions in the brain then one cannot judge another on what is good or what is evil. We are simply animals, again with no souls. That would then go to say if I wanted to come and hump your leg, punch your aunt Sally in the face, or (GASP IS HE ABOUT TO SAY IT?! YES HE IS!) steal your car that you cannot then say that it is wrong, because it is all just chemical reactions in my brain. Across nearly everyone in the world there is obviously evidence that this standard exists. Rape and cannibalism are two of the highest standards to social laws or objective standards on what is evil. This goes to show that there is obviously an external objective moral standard that exists, and I would argue that this standard is from God.
I'm going to touch on your argument for evidence again. Scenario: QD (I picked you because you are probably going to read this.) comes into my house and kills my wife no finger prints, no dna evidence, no weapon, no motive, nothing. Does that then mean that QD did not kill my wife? Of course not. Truth is truth whether evidence is there or not also whether you choose to believe it or not.
Another book to read is "More Than a Carpenter" by Josh McDowell Little bit of an easier read.