Bonjour798's Challenge Thread! Theists, Beware!

[CapinPorcupine]

What was good for the culture and ourselves became our morals really. We didn't kill our own because we counted on our own tribe for survival. Elders were respected and protected for their wisdom. We cover our own butts basically. When we, as people, know something may be done to us we don't like, we tend to not want to put ourselves into situations where that may occur. When societies form we want to naturally step into a way of doing things so that we don't get hurt. We also base what we view as wrong on if we would feel it was wrong if done to us or our loved ones. I find being raped to be horrible and a violation of me in so many ways, so therefore, I find rape itself to be wrong. It's really not that hard to figure out.

I understand what you're getting at, but where does it come from in ourselves that its an awful thing? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you fully on this topic and I hate using it as an example but wouldn't it make sense to advance our species by basically jumping on anything that looked like us and moved?

 

[CapinPorcupine]

But were kind of getting way off topic here, we should probably transition back to the main subject of the forum.

 

[Draka]

I understand what you're getting at, but where does it come from in ourselves that its an awful thing? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you fully on this topic and I hate using it as an example but wouldn't it make sense to advance our species by basically jumping on anything that looked like us and moved?

I'm not quite sure I'm understanding your point here. Are you referring to my point about rape and saying that rape makes sense to advance and propagate our species? Or how do we know something is awful? I think that those who have experienced such can attest to how awful something is and our imaginations can do the rest. Self-preservation is built into us as a requirement for surviving and evolution. In order for a species to evolve it must have a sense in it to want to stay alive. Things that run counter to that are to naturally be avoided.

 

[Nakosis]

Okay, and where did our teachers, parents, and culture (which media stems from) get this view of evil?

Same place we did. If you think to follow it back to some beginning there isn't one. It evolved along with man. Right actions were those that successfully achieved a goal. Wrong actions were those that got in the way of reaching that goal.

Killing another tribe was successful if you gained their resources. That was right if successful. Others found cooperation successful to reach a goal.

I think eventually cooperation won out by shear numbers. Then just getting the largest population through agreement either by consensus or claiming and enforcing a mandated set of morals.

It the US for example our civil morals is developed by consensus. Your personal sense of morality may agree or disagree with that consensus.

For the Hebrew the laws of Moses were mandated. They became their civil laws. A mandated moral code that was developed from what they saw as successful actions to achieve their goals. The Judeans kept loosing battles. Having the basis of the laws of Moses. No Idolatry, no other Gods. Their loss, unsuccessful action was explain by breaking those laws. It reenforced the immorality of breaking those laws.

 

[CapinPorcupine]

I'm not quite sure I'm understanding your point here. Are you referring to my point about rape and saying that rape makes sense to advance and propagate our species? Or how do we know something is awful? I think that those who have experienced such can attest to how awful something is and our imaginations can do the rest. Self-preservation is built into us as a requirement for surviving and evolution. In order for a species to evolve it must have a sense in it to want to stay alive. Things that run counter to that are to naturally be avoided.

I'm not condoning rape, like i said, I didn't want to use that example but it was already brought up. All I'm saying is that in a completely logical view on the advancement of our species (without morals, good, evil) because in all other species, that's pretty much how it goes.

Again, I do not condone rape or anything of the sort. It was just an example brought up so its what I used.

 

[Willamena]

I'll take a shot at this.

Richard Swinburne, a Christian philosopher, defines God as follows.

"I take the proposition 'God exists' (and the equivalent propositon 'There is a God') to be logically equivalent to 'there exists necessarily a person without a body who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things.'" (The Existence of God, p. 7)

An atheist is a person who believes that God, so defined, does not exist. I will present four quick reasons for being an atheist.

Reason 1: Free will does not exist.

If God exists, then God has free will, per Swinburne's definition. But it is extremely difficult to say what free will is supposed to be.

Obviously not too difficult, if you see it in Swinburne's definition, where it's not explicitly stated.

Indeed, the notion of free will appears to be positively incoherent: An action must be either caused or uncaused, but it is not free if it is caused or if it is not caused. Therefore, neither free will nor God exists.

"Free will" (in this case apparently defined as an action that is free) is only incoherent because you make it so, by defining an action as something necessarily not free. It is only by your defining it that way that there is no action that can possibly be free. Are people not given to act freely?

Reason 2: Consciousness requires a brain.

If God exists, God is conscious without a body, per Swinburne's definition. But everything conscious that we know of has a brain. It is more reasonable to conclude that consciousness is a process that occurs in brains than to believe that it is a substance in itself which can have an existence independently of the brain. Therefore, God does not exist.

Again, you've defined only those things that have a brain as being conscious, but we have observed conscious behavior in plants, insects, machines, and potentially, if not actually, in computers, all without brains. It's also the case that, while we conceive we need brains to conceive, that is us conceiving.

Reason 3: The problem of evil disproves God's existence.

If God exists, he is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly moral, per Swinburne's definition. If such a being existed, then evil would not exist. But evil does exist, in overwhelming quantity. Some apologists attempt to get out of this argument by deploying a free will defense, but as we have seen, free will does not exist. Therefore, God does not exist.

Being limited to Swinburne's definition, and taking any one definition of "evil" as useful, this is the logical conclusion to the Problem of Evil outlined. I'd only mention that, as pointed out earlier, it's a very particular image of God, and that alone makes it of questionable worth for being a reason for atheism, at least my atheism. If I can look at one image of god and know it to be substantially different than that held by a billion other people, why would this one argument be a good enough reason to call myself "atheist"?

Reason 4: Occam's Razor "shaves off" the claim that God exists.

Given the lack of objective positive evidence for the existence of God, it is simpler to attribute belief in God to the intellectual vices and emotional needs of the believer than to an actually extant deity. In cases like this, we can safely appeal to Occam's Razor to "shave off" the claim that God exists, just like we do the claim that leprechauns exist. Therefore, in the same sense in which we say leprechauns do not exist, we can reasonably say God does not exist.

When you delve into the philosophy that supports an epistemic view of the world, though, Occam's Razor can cut both ways. Between cause and effect being reduced to inference, and the uncertainty of relying on authorities, those authorities, such as "truth," and "objective reality," are things the razor takes aim at. When it's truth and reality of the world that gets summarily "shaved off," what you're left with--all that remains--is... the world, true and real. That's where people begin to find god.

I look forward to your responses.

 

[Draka]

I'm not condoning rape, like i said, I didn't want to use that example but it was already brought up. All I'm saying is that in a completely logical view on the advancement of our species (without morals, good, evil) because in all other species, that's pretty much how it goes.

Again, I do not condone rape or anything of the sort. It was just an example brought up so its what I used.

Propagation isn't the same as advancement, first off. Humans, as a species, advance intellectually and culturally as well. As time has gone by numbers have become less important in gaining and learning how to survive with each other has become more important. Especially since our numbers keep gaining and there are more of us to get along with. We are intelligent to understand certain concepts, such as: getting hit hurts, if getting hit hurts us it is reasonable to assume it hurts others as well. Since we think getting hit hurts and therefore find it undesirable to happen to us then, chances are, someone else finds it undesirable as well. From this line of reasoning we figure out that hitting is "wrong" as it is undesirable. Thus it could be considered "immoral" to hit.

Morality, right/wrong, good/evil, they all can be easily attributed to our natural evolution as a thinking species within different cultures. This is why you find differences in some morals from culture to culture. Some cultures are just not at the same societal evolution stage as others. Furthermore, religions grown out of certain cultures at certain times reflect the stage of societal evolution of that culture rather than the other way around. So no one religion or god can be attributed with giving the concept of morals; rather, the morals of the time and culture were attributed towards the god believed in.

 

[ChristineES]

I'm not quite sure I'm understanding your point here. Are you referring to my point about rape and saying that rape makes sense to advance and propagate our species? Or how do we know something is awful? I think that those who have experienced such can attest to how awful something is and our imaginations can do the rest. Self-preservation is built into us as a requirement for surviving and evolution. In order for a species to evolve it must have a sense in it to want to stay alive. Things that run counter to that are to naturally be avoided.

Does anyone believe that there may be a certain amount of empathy involved? The fact that we don't hurt others because we don't want to cause anyone any distress? Rape, murder, torture, etc. all involve causing someone distress. Even less distressful things, such as breaking up with a lover (I once had a boyfriend who broke up with me via letter because he didn't want to see "tears in your eyes"). Sure, we don't do horrible things to others due to necessity and other reasons- but maybe there is also empathy involved.

 

[CapinPorcupine]

@Draka

Alright, that's fine, I feel like were just arguing for the sake of arguing now so I'm going to end it. I believe what I believe, and you beliefs are your own, so shall we call it a day and shake on it? Maybe have a nice pipe together while discussing our stocks or our recent horse/yacht races while wearing some fine top hats?

 

[Draka]

Does anyone believe that there may be a certain amount of empathy involved? The fact that we don't hurt others because we don't want to cause anyone any distress? Rape, murder, torture, etc. all involve causing someone distress. Even less distressful things, such as breaking up with a lover (I once had a boyfriend who broke up with me via letter because he didn't want to see "tears in your eyes"). Sure, we don't do horrible things to others due to necessity and other reasons- but maybe there is also empathy involved.

I believe that empathy is a part of our intellectual (and thus emotional) evolution. The ability to empathize comes in prominently in our ability to recognize when something may be wrong. The fact that we often immediately imagine what it must be like to go through something someone else has gone through and determine that it was wrong plays a large part in how we function as a society. Yes, empathy is very much involved.

 

[Draka]

@Draka

Alright, that's fine, I feel like were just arguing for the sake of arguing now so I'm going to end it. I believe what I believe, and you beliefs are your own, so shall we call it a day and shake on it? Maybe have a nice pipe together while discussing our stocks or our recent horse/yacht races while wearing some fine top hats?

You don your top hat and I'll don a nice ladies' hat, you smoke your pipe and I'll carry my parasol and we'll make a day of it.

 

[CapinPorcupine]

Sounds like a rather posh shindig, we could even listen to this new musical craze known as jazz.

 

[Sir Doom]

The usual answer is that God is only limited by the laws of logic, I think.

That may be the usual answer, but its not omnipotence at all. The question stands. If omnipotence is limited by logic, what is it NOT limited by that distinguishes it as omnipotent?

I don't know about this argument. You're disagreeing with the widely accepted scientific criterion of simplicity, and asserting that it's nothing more than "the point at which scientists reattach their subjective opinions to the principle they are testing." This sounds kind of like pseudo-science to me.

I only brought up interpretation of data because you did. Occam's Razor is supposed to apply to formulating the Hypothesis. Its a reminder not to create elaborate hypotheses because you will then have to create elaborate experiments to prove them.

Lets try this (a bit tongue in cheek of course):

Question: What is god?
Hypothesis: God is only an imagination of believers (a paraphrased version of your OP).
Prediction: By demonstrating to all believers that imagined things are not real, god will disappear.
Experiment:
Materials: 100% of believers, 100% of imagined things, 100% of real things
Procedure: Allow 100% of believers to observe 100% of imagined things compared to 100% of real things.
Analysis:

You can fill in that last bit if you can complete the experiment. In other words, your hypothesis is not objectively simpler than the believer's.

EDIT: Thought I'd do a believer's version just for fairness

Question: What is god?
Hypothesis: God is Omnipotent
Prediction: If I live a good life, then when I die I will meet God and confirm its Omnipotence.
Experiment:
Materials: 1 Life, 1 definition of good
Procedure: Maintain life 1 time within parameters defined as good. Die.
Analysis:

Someone else will have to complete the analysis. This experiment is actually possible, at least. Results may vary, though.