Nature of God

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Advil, Sports Creme, Marijuana? So you're saying these have made me believe the things I have? Of course, most of those experiences that I did live through happened before I even touched weed, so I don't see how you can know about my experiences any better than I can, and your need to try to pin miracles or supernatural events otherwise not explainable by reason or science, into the realm of science. To me you are trying to make everything fit in to your cozy worldview so you can be right.

Tell me what your experience was, and we'll see if science can explain it.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Nothing is perfect, the state of man is imperfection, that is what you can't understand.

Yes, Mouse, I'm talking about genocide and suicide cults because I don't understand that man is imperfect.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Yes, Mouse, I'm talking about genocide and suicide cults because I don't understand that man is imperfect.

Originally posted by loseyourname Tell me what your experience was, and we'll see if science can explain it.

Telling you the things I experienced won't make this issue any understandable to you than it already is. For what might appear to be a mere accident, or some traumatizing event, to you, or the unbeliever may seem something regular that everyone experiences in their lifetimes. To the believer, who is experiencing that moment, they are experiencing a transcendental experiencing. Science and reason would say this is just hallucinations and superstition, that I made myself, via faith, believe that for so long, that when an event happened, I interpreted to mean it was from God or a miracle. I know how these arguments work, you aren't the first nor the last to state these, and it is curious why you disregarded all my other points on how much we place faith in our everyday lives.

Are you saying that somehow Genocide is because of religion? The Nazis were anything but Christians or adherents to religion. In fact, genocide and war is not a result of religion, for all religions essentially speak of humility, but it is about Statism and collective thinking. Man can dogmatize anything, from religion, to science, your comparisons are seriously flawed for you are attempting to pin madness only on human fanatics warping religion, and not on science, for Hitler's views were a direct result of Darwinism, the survival of the fittest. So let's be careful before we use the tarbrush of generalization one way or another, just like we should be careful how we try to address faith with reason.

[loseyourname]

I suppose you're right about my use of human fanaticism as an argument. Fanaticism will use anything to justify evil. My only point is that if they say they are using faith in the same way you are, there is absolutely nothing you could say to rebuke them, whereas is they attempt to use reason or science to justify their evil, they can logically be proven wrong.

Your relunctance to state your experiences is understandable. I am assuming that yes, they are relatively commonplace, hell, maybe even similar to experiences that I have had. I have experienced a great deal of luck in my lifetime, including bad situations that turned into great learning experiences and a couple of times I was very close to dying and probably should have. The simple fact is, that if put to the test, science and luck can explain these perfectly fine, without resort to supernatural explanations. The fact that I am not the first to use this argument doesn't make it in invalid argument. You have no answer for it. All you can say "I know because I know." That is reasoning, and it is faulty reasoning. Human beings do not come to conclusions based on faith. There exists experiential evidence in your memory that is enough to convince you, through reason, that what you have been through cannot be explained through any means other than faith. Your faith is only used to fill in the gaps in your reasoning, and flatly put, you are wrong.

You may lead a very nice life, full of spiritual pleasures and wonderful brain states induced by your beliefs, and that is all fine and dandy. But you have compromised the principal of truth, and that is something that I will never do. I would rather live with uncertainty. I have no idea whether or not there is a God, though I suspect that there probably is, for far different reasons than you have. I also have no idea what will happen to me when I die, and that is fine. I am perfectly content to live solely in reality, and not believe that which is not built from a sound foundation. A person can convince themselves of just about anything, and if it is not backed up by evidence or reason, it is hollow and no better than the ravings of a schizophrenic. It is particularly hollow when it goes against the evidence and reason, as is the case with Christian belief.

[Anonymouse]

I suppose you're right about my use of human fanaticism as an argument. Fanaticism will use anything to justify evil. My only point is that if they say they are using faith in the same way you are, there is absolutely nothing you could say to rebuke them, whereas is they attempt to use reason or science to justify their evil, they can logically be proven wrong.

I don't see what you're aiming at here. You start off by saying that yes fanaticism will corrupt everything, then go on to somehow make faith more worse than the other things. If you're insinuating that because some abuse faith, no different than some abuse reason, then that makes faith lesser than reason, I don't agree for the same argument can be made towards reason. This sort of argument attempts to paint one holier than the other and thereby to the ignorant reader forming a judgement that faith is evil, yet you yourself have faith in your every day life, which I pointed out, which you conveniently ignored.

Your relunctance to state your experiences is understandable. I am assuming that yes, they are relatively commonplace, hell, maybe even similar to experiences that I have had. I have experienced a great deal of luck in my lifetime, including bad situations that turned into great learning experiences and a couple of times I was very close to dying and probably should have. The simple fact is, that if put to the test, science and luck can explain these perfectly fine, without resort to supernatural explanations.

Like I've said science itself is a victim of faith in the end. Look at Darwin and evolutionary science. It is nothing but faith. I doubt science can answer some of the things I know which I attribute to God.

The fact that I am not the first to use this argument doesn't make it in invalid argument.

No one said it is invalid. In fact, you have a problem with making stuff up of things I am supposed to have said but in reality I haven't said at all and you are implying that I said that. All I said is I am familiar with your argument because it has been used before by many before you in that science can offer cozy explanations. I don't buy it. Whether you accept that or not is your problem.

You have no answer for it. All you can say "I know because I know."

Actually I do have an answer. It's God and my faith in God. So somehow by the above you actually know more about my experiences and my outlook than I supposedly do. This is the last resort of the arrogant ones who believe they alone are some sacred adepts that have mastered the use of reason. Even the greats philosophers recognized faith, because it was in a different realm than reason, they only believed that reason was enough for our material world, but it cannot explain phenomenon that transcends the material world and so they avoided it. Clearly you haven't really read up on the classic if you still do not understand the dichotomy between faith and reason and insist that reason is right and faith is wrong. For if you have, you would realize that neither faith nor reason are right or wrong, they simply are.

That is reasoning, and it is faulty reasoning. Human beings do not come to conclusions based on faith.

Really? So somehow you are here making the claim that you are the arbiter of what is truly valid or invalid knowledge and that reason reigns supreme. So my personal exerpiences, as well as those of my parents, somehow are all flawed because they didn't se reason. I'd be more inclined to say that in your world arrogance reigns supreme. Of course your inability, or rather, your hang up with trying to prove to me that having faith is stupid and reason can answer everything, yet ignoring all the examples of faith I displayed in our everyday lives, highlights to me someone who is obssessed with being 'right' about this because he is 'right'. In fact in this case I cannot even rebuke you. You claimed fanatics in faith cannot be rebuked well here you are a man of reason cannot be rebuked. Your point? Should we stop having faith or exercising reason? I know you will find a nice clever way to turn this around and re explain your position but eh...

Human being come to conclusions based on faith everyday, and all you had to do was read my examples of faith in our everyday lives. Most of what we 'know' is based on faith to. We have faith that those who wrote those history books did so accurately and honestly. We don't know that they did, but we have faith that they did. Thus we come to a conclusion based on faith.

There exists experiential evidence in your memory that is enough to convince you, through reason, that what you have been through cannot be explained through any means other than faith. Your faith is only used to fill in the gaps in your reasoning, and flatly put, you are wrong.

Well like I said, I never denied reason in fact I reason all the time, like we are doing now. But some things science is unable to answer such as where we came from or how we even have our memory, or who gave it to us? What about self consciousness? How do you explain an organismic consciousness that is conscious of itself? Where did this come from? Science may attempt to answer it using clever jargon and words to give it an aura of science, but it is no more of a guess, than it is that we descended from simple celled organisms.

You may lead a very nice life, full of spiritual pleasures and wonderful brain states induced by your beliefs, and that is all fine and dandy. But you have compromised the principal of truth, and that is something that I will never do.

Truth? No one may know truth. We can only have guesses and or attempts at it. Only human arrogance would be fain to admit this. Reason answers many things, no one denies this. Faith replaces reason on many more things. You're absolute denial of faith is in itself a denial of truth, since all things contain a bit of truth, but not the absolute truth.

I would rather live with uncertainty.

Good for you.

I have no idea whether or not there is a God, though I suspect that there probably is, for far different reasons than you have. I also have no idea what will happen to me when I die, and that is fine. I am perfectly content to live solely in reality, and not believe that which is not built from a sound foundation. A person can convince themselves of just about anything, and if it is not backed up by evidence or reason, it is hollow and no better than the ravings of a schizophrenic. It is particularly hollow when it goes against the evidence and reason, as is the case with Christian belief.

Faith in moral principles in virtue ad in God are necessary for the guidance of man, just as instinct is for the animal. Humans in possession of a mind and soul cannot help but exercise faith. If they were mindless animals, it wouldn't necessarily be so. We recognize a soul, a conscience and the sense of an authority above us, with universal moral laws and all these rest on the principles of faith. No one can suffer and be patient, or struggle and conquer, nor improve and be happy without a conscience, without hope, and without God. In some degree we all use faith, even you, which you will be fain to admit. To claim that all knowledge necessarily needs to meet the scientific method is strong limiting yourself and in fact means you should disbelieve all the faith based claims and actions you make in your everyday life.

The total rejection of all faith and belief would strike out a principle from human nature, which human nature is hopelessly tied to; man is a faithful creature. After all faith must flow out from some source within us when the evidence of that which we are to believe is not presented to our senses. If science and knowledge is the sun, belief is the man. It is inescapable. Only arrogance would deny the use of faith in the journey of mankind. It is precisely our stepping away from the idea of an authority, a force above us, the doctrine that man is God, is why we can cause so much destruction, and that is the driving force for the world now. That by science man will somehow conquer nature and become its God. Once again, this is a circular argument unless you wish to cede that faith and reason are the positive and negative, light and dark.

[ckBejug]

Re: Nature of God

Originally posted by loseyourname I'm going to assume, for the sake of argument, that God exists in this thread. Let's discuss what the nature of this being might be. The stock theistic model these days goes something like this: God is an immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, completely free intelligent being who created the universe. Does that really make any sense? I can make a couple of pretty decent arguments that that is nothing more than a load of incoherent nonsense. So what do you think God is?

Even if you don't believe in God, consider this. Hell seems to be an eternal separation from God. Not believing in a God is the complete and absolute rejection of the one phenomenal thing that loves you in spite of yourself. If you say a God doesn't exist, you're dismissing something that has no choice but to love you, something whose pure and absolute love willed your existence. The rejection of that is a complete and horrifying denial of one's capacity to be loved at all. Is it not?

Please don't think I say this to argue the existence or inexistence of a God. That was merely an opinion and nothing anyone says is going to make me change my mind about it, because there is nothing to change my mind about as it is not MY opinion, I just wanted to throw that out there to see what you guys thought about it. The end.

[loseyourname]

If this is hell, it aint all that bad.

[Anonymouse]

This response is from the previous thread in the other forum in the other thread which was closed.

Originally posted by loseyourname That is your belief. Others, who use exactly the same faith that you use, come to different conclusions. They don't think that when you analyze, competing faiths will reconcile. They believe that you are wrong, or that Islam is wrong, or that Jainism is wrong, or that Hinduism is wrong, or that Shamanism is wrong, or that Satanism is wrong. How is it that you are the one person amongst all these that happens to be right?

Are you trying to make my point for me here? You have just shown why it is foolish to accept things on faith alone. The fact that we do it doesn't mean we should be doing it. Quite to the contrary, I believe that any prudent person would agree that we should always critically analyze and question the assertions of historians, politicians, and lovers.

That is the problem of those people who believe one is wrong over the other. When I look at the grand scheme of things, I ask myself, why do every society in everytime have religious beliefs? And if you take that further and compare, contrast, and study them, you see similarities. You see that all morality emanates from this. Why do all societies have morality? I see purpose here, and I see power that is beyond us. When have I been against critically analyzing historians, politicians, and even lovers? But it remains nonetheless that we spend less time critically analyziing them, than we do believing them.

Originally posted by loseyourname So you admit that you contradict yourself, but it's okay because it is faith contradicting faith? Is this honestly how you acquire a belief system?

I was being sarcastic Mr. Lose. Anything can contradict anything per the rules of logic Mr. Lose. I already mentioned. I already went as far as saying that it is not logical nor reasonable to believe in God, essentially argued your position.

Originally posted by loseyourname You observed me state many times that I do not believe it is moral to use faith alone as a justification for metaphysical belief, and that I would battle anyone who attempted to do so. Then you said that it was my ego that was forcing me to keep this up. First off, that is a knowledge claim. Second, you have made many others, saying that all humans desire a creator and that all humans desire moral order. Third, what is it that is making you keep this up that is any different from what is making me keep this up?

All metaphysical beliefs themselves have their root in faith and the immaterial, since from where do these ideas come from and what is their purpose? As far as humans desiring, do you deny you have desire to know things beyond our limitations? Do you desire for no moral order? So you desire for immorality? This would contradict your previously held position that you believe morality is objective, in essence admitting to morality. What makes me keep this up is to develop my mind and discuss, ask questions, as this helps me uncover secrets in my mind that I previously did know. What else is the purpose of humans if they didn't think, or express thought?

Originally posted by loseyourname I agreed that knowledge can come from revelation. You are not arguing that your knowledge came from revelation. You are saying it came from experiences that defy logic. You will still not say what they are, and so we don't know if they even do defy logic.

What else is knowledge through revelation other than experiences that defy logic? As far as your insistence about what they are, I don't know you therefore I'm not comfortable telling you my whole life story.

Originally posted by loseyourname Assumed by who? I never assumed that.

It is assumed by fundamentalist scientists.

Originally posted by loseyourname Then be cool. Show me some logic that proves we have to have been created.

For example, the first law of thermodynamics states taht "Matter cannot be created or destroyed". Then where did matter come from?

Originally posted by loseyourname If it's a matter of arguing and not being right, why are you continually claiming that you are right and that our universe is the product of an intelligent creator. I have never made any similar knowledge claim.

My experiences have led me to that. Thus, I believe, therefore know, just like I think, therefore I am. You claim you don't know, which is better said that you don't believe there is a purpose or creator. When you say "You don't know" it is no different than saying there is no purpose therefore no creator. Only creator and intelligent design would highlight purpose. When you "don't know" you are showing doubt at creative design, therefore doubt at there being purpose. Thus it is a simply matter of either creator or no creator. There is no middle ground Mr. Lose. When I look back at my atheism and agnostic years, atheism was simply not even willing to think about this, but brush it aside. I simply didn't even bother dealing with this questions since they were to me, pointless. When I was an agnostic, it was different in that I still highlighted disbelief, but it was more akin to wanting to have myself proven wrong, in otherwords I was a closet believer that needed validation. Now that to me has been validated. I never said I'm "right" per se, just in my experience and my personal transition from these paths. You might be perfectly right. This might all be hallucinations, no different than the ancients believing that lightning meant God was angry.

Originally posted by loseyourname I would like you to demonstrate for us how my argument that there are things we can't know leads to the logical conclusion that we can eventually know everything.

When did I attribute them to genes? I said they may be attributable to genes. If you want to start a thread about this, do so. I will have mountains of evidence on my side, and I'm guessing you will have more sophistry.[/B][/QUOTE]

That's not what you were saying. You said eventually something along the lines of mapping thought onto genes, which I thought was absurd, and this implies that we can know beyond, since thought is beyond material terms. It is inconceivable to the human mind how thought can be mapped onto genes. Brainwaves, electric stimuli, etc., can, but thoughts?

Originally posted by loseyourname This is because there are thinking human beings alive today that have knowledge of what these thoughts are. These thoughts will die as soon as they are forgotten, or thinking entities capable of remembering them vanish. This is beside the point anyway. The point isn't whether thoughts can persist. The point is whether individual awareness of these thoughts exists. Sure, Socrates' argument are still here for us to read and study. But does Socrates himself still exist?

Because the laws of physics, by themselves, are enough to explain the order and diversity of life that we find today. There is no need to invoke intelligent creation. There are only two questions left unanswered.

First, how did those laws themselves come into existence? This may very well be something we can never answer, and that's fine. As I said, I believe there are things that we will never answer. Science might be able to explain this through M-theory, which is nowhere near being fully worked out, but even then, it cannot explain where superstrings themselves came from. There is always a cap on human knowledge. One can make a leap of faith and say they were created, or one can make a leap of faith and say that they are uncreated. I will make no such leap.

The second question pertains to human consciousness? What exactly is it, and how did it arise? It remains to be seen whether or not science has much of meaning to say about this. The scientific study of consciousness is a very new and unorganized discipline. Fifty years from now, when this is no longer the case, we can get back together and do this all over again, just like old times.

Socrates doesn't exist in the material world, the thought of Socrates does. God doesn't exist in the material world ( although I'd say everything has a touch of God ), his thought ( us ) does. We feel ourselves to be aware, yet can never map this empirically. Why is that? Why am I me? I can think. I am not you, nor he, but me. My souls texture, and personality are different and how I express my thoughts are different. A human thought is then a force, and a power, and existence, capable of controlling mind. Our thoughts influence others and we ourselves are influenced by others thoughts from before and eventually they go back to its source, God.

Thus it is the thought of God that guides all men and morality heading towards an ideal. It his is thought that comes to us and we spread it further, that controls the universe, and actions of humanity. It speaks to our soul and ever man who lives, speaks to us in stars, in winds, in beauty, in lightning, in love, in words. Of course this is what we all seek and aspire to, although you will now tell me I am making a knowledge claim, which I am, based on my initial drive and will, that is part of all human nature, I am applying to all humans.

And thus, Socrates is dead, but the thought of Socrates lives on, we know who he is upon the thought of his name, and that thought of his name leads us to further thoughts about his own thoughts. Thus it is the thoughts of the past that are the laws of the present and future. That which we say and do, if its effects dont last past our lives is unimportant to us. That which lives beyond our lives when we die, is the only thought and act worth speaking and doing. And that is why all things spring from this. It is a desire to live past our lives, a desire which guided the most noble and ignoble humans, from all the alphabets of men, from Aristotle, to Hitler, to Einstein, to Darwin, to Kant, to Confucius to the common peasants throughout history and to those creating a family so that they themselves can imbue in their children that their parents have imbued in them. Thus the desire to do something that will benefit the world and live past our lives is the noblest ambition that we all hold. And you cannot surely tell me that science will one day map this thought on a gene.

Originally posted by loseyourname That's exactly what I said, Mousy. There is no need to prove these things because all humans report having the same experience of morality and self-awareness and thought. Of course I would not kill anyone. I do not refrain from doing so because it is against the law. An intelligent person can very easily avoid being caught and prosecuted under that law.

If that's exactly what you said, why are you here arguing with me about this?

[violette829]

Mods? Aren't we forgetting to move this into the Intellectual Lounge? Cmon now...someone's not doing his/her job!!!




Baron Dants says: Only for you Violette jan.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse That is the problem of those people who believe one is wrong over the other.

Mousy, you believe they are wrong. What's the difference?

When I look at the grand scheme of things, I ask myself, why do every society in everytime have religious beliefs?

So do I. The conclusion is that they observed things that they could not explain, and so invented supernatural explanations. Gradually, we have become able to answer many of the things they couldn't, and their supernaturalism was disproved. Even so, we still have questions that can't be answered, and people like you still exist to give them supernatural answers, even though it has been shown historically that such an attempt will always be ill-fated.

And if you take that further and compare, contrast, and study them, you see similarities. You see that all morality emanates from this. Why do all societies have morality?

A society with no morals would kill itself off. Therefore, none are observed. How's that for natural selection?

I see purpose here, and I see power that is beyond us. When have I been against critically analyzing historians, politicians, and even lovers? But it remains nonetheless that we spend less time critically analyziing them, than we do believing them.

And it remains a fact that we are wrong to do that. You are also wrong not to critically analyze your faith in God.

I was being sarcastic Mr. Lose. Anything can contradict anything per the rules of logic Mr. Lose.

This is your excuse for contradicting yourself?

As far as humans desiring, do you deny you have desire to know things beyond our limitations? Do you desire for no moral order? So you desire for immorality?

Of course. Every one of these desires is explainable biologically. Perhaps this is why you are so adamantly against evolution, because it is evolution that explains it.

What makes me keep this up is to develop my mind and discuss, ask questions, as this helps me uncover secrets in my mind that I previously did know. What else is the purpose of humans if they didn't think, or express thought?

Indeed, there would be little purpose. It seems a little unfair to characterize yourself as the knowledge seeker and me as the person who only keeps this up because of his ego.

What else is knowledge through revelation other than experiences that defy logic?

An act of divine revelation is God directly communicating to you metaphysical truth.

As far as your insistence about what they are, I don't know you therefore I'm not comfortable telling you my whole life story.

Then you will need to quit using them and insisting that logic can't explain them, since that remains to be seen.

It is assumed by fundamentalist scientists.

And I am not a fundamentalist scientist. You are arguing with me, remember that. Quit bringing in all these peripheral issues.

For example, the first law of thermodynamics states taht "Matter cannot be created or destroyed". Then where did matter come from?

Matter cannot be destroyed or created in a chemical process. Matter is routinely created and destroyed in nuclear processes. You are showing a fundamental lack of understanding of the laws of thermodynamics.

My experiences have led me to that. Thus, I believe, therefore know, just like I think, therefore I am.

Mousy, I believe, therefore it is true means that anything a person believes is true. I thought you were against relativism.

You claim you don't know, which is better said that you don't believe there is a purpose or creator. When you say "You don't know" it is no different than saying there is no purpose therefore no creator.

It is quite different.

Only creator and intelligent design would highlight purpose. When you "don't know" you are showing doubt at creative design, therefore doubt at there being purpose.

First off, I have no difficulty finding purpose in an uncreated universe. Second, even if I couldn't, that would mean nothing. Our universe could very well be purposeless. There is no reason to exclude that possibility.

Thus it is a simply matter of either creator or no creator. There is no middle ground Mr. Lose.

There is no middle ground in what is true. There either is or is not a creator. This does not mean you must believe one or the other. Let me ask you something: Do you believe that Calabi-Yau topography adequately shows a means of translating superstring vibrations into elementary particles?

When I look back at my atheism and agnostic years, atheism was simply not even willing to think about this, but brush it aside. I simply didn't even bother dealing with this questions since they were to me, pointless. When I was an agnostic, it was different in that I still highlighted disbelief, but it was more akin to wanting to have myself proven wrong, in otherwords I was a closet believer that needed validation. Now that to me has been validated. I never said I'm "right" per se, just in my experience and my personal transition from these paths.

Well, thank you for a personal history. I am touched. I don't see how this pertains to what is being discussed.

You might be perfectly right. This might all be hallucinations, no different than the ancients believing that lightning meant God was angry.

Well, thank you for admitting that. If I might be right, then you might be wrong, which means that you don't know for sure. Have we reached reconciliation on this matter? Don't worry, because we still have plenty else to argue about.

That's not what you were saying. You said eventually something along the lines of mapping thought onto genes, which I thought was absurd, and this implies that we can know beyond, since thought is beyond material terms.

Thoughts are not mapped onto genes. I said quite specifically that all gene expression is modified through behavior. The genes contain codes for building a brain, which in turn thinks. What a person thinks is not determined genetically.

Socrates doesn't exist in the material world, the thought of Socrates does.

Of course they do. Again, that is not the point. Will they continue to exist when all human perception and all the paper they are written and every record of them disappears? Does there exist anything that can be called "Socrates" anywhere, not just here in the physical universe.

Thus it is the thought of God that guides all men and morality heading towards an ideal. It his is thought that comes to us and we spread it further, that controls the universe, and actions of humanity. It speaks to our soul and ever man who lives, speaks to us in stars, in winds, in beauty, in lightning, in love, in words.

This an awful lot of unfounded speculation here. Your premises are completely unconnected to your conclusions.

Of course this is what we all seek and aspire to, although you will now tell me I am making a knowledge claim, which I am, based on my initial drive and will, that is part of all human nature, I am applying to all humans.

Yes, you speak of each person's autonomy of thought and desire, then you proceed to say that because you have a certain desire, all humans must have them. Even if that were the case, it still would prove nothing.

And thus, Socrates is dead, but the thought of Socrates lives on, we know who he is upon the thought of his name, and that thought of his name leads us to further thoughts about his own thoughts.

I don't know about you, but the idea of my thoughts living on doesn't do much for me. I want to know whether or not I will live on. A man is a lot more than the sum of his thoughts. A man is the awareness of his thinking.

Thus it is the thoughts of the past that are the laws of the present and future. That which we say and do, if its effects dont last past our lives is unimportant to us. That which lives beyond our lives when we die, is the only thought and act worth speaking and doing. And that is why all things spring from this. It is a desire to live past our lives, a desire which guided the most noble and ignoble humans, from all the alphabets of men, from Aristotle, to Hitler, to Einstein, to Darwin, to Kant, to Confucius to the common peasants throughout history and to those creating a family so that they themselves can imbue in their children that their parents have imbued in them. Thus the desire to do something that will benefit the world and live past our lives is the noblest ambition that we all hold.

Yep, and all of this desire to live on may be perfectly explainable through survival instinct. I'm not saying that is all there is to it. Don't get me wrong. Such a statement would be ludicrous in its arrogance, and even I am not that arrogant. Nonetheless, what you have here does not constitute proof of either God or an individual soul

And you cannot surely tell me that science will one day map this thought on a gene.

I have already explains that thoughts are not genetically determined. It is oversimplifying to say anything like that. They may be, however, describable entirely in terms of biochemical reactions in the human brain that result from a combination of genetic and sensory input. I would like to think there is more to it than that. I would like to think that the existence of free will is more than an illusion, but the simple fact is, we don't know.