can you proove there isn't a deity?

[lewisnotmiller]

THE TRUTH IS WITHIN ALL RELIGIONS, AND WITHOUT THE WORD RELIGION. take a journey....its amazing what you will find.

Never quite understood this viewpoint, given the diversity of religion.
So you think Raelism, atheistic Buddhism, Shinto, Islam and Scientology all hold truth?

 

[roger1440]

THE TRUTH IS WITHIN ALL RELIGIONS, AND WITHOUT THE WORD RELIGION. take a journey....its amazing what you will find.

Without knowing what “ALL RELIGIONS” believe, how can you make such a claim?

 

[ladybug77]

Because they fit together like a puzzle. And ive researched a pretty good handful...they either lack a little truth here and there...or have added plain BS...search for yourself. See what you find.

 

[ladybug77]

Never quite understood this viewpoint, given the diversity of religion.
So you think Raelism, atheistic Buddhism, Shinto, Islam and Scientology all hold truth?

Yes. Truth runs throughout all of those.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't think you can do so given the definition. Just kidding. By all means lets clear this up.

Truth is several things.
1. It is not a matter of perception, opinion, or acceptance.
2. Truth is independent of human apprehension.
3. Truth is an objective quality.
4. Truth is almost always an exclusive category.

Moral truths are value conditions that apply to the correctness of an action that is objective in nature.

That is not true. Just as Pluto's existence is independent of our knowledge of it moral truths must be independent of our apprehension of them. There is an obscure category where you would be correct. If I said that murder is morally wrong then it is an objective fact that I said it. It however is not true because I said it or believe it. It is only true if it is true independent of anyone's perception of it.

I will show the absurdity of your criteria by simply applying it. If sentience is the foundation for morality or (more properly unjustified actions against sentient beings) then why is murdering a human more wrong than murdering a gnat? By your own standard you probably committed a hundred cases of murder on your drive to work tomorrow. As usual my world view resolves these self contradictions your creates. I have more value to God than a gnat and they were subjected to humanity by their creator. You can derive no actual value for any life or anything without God. human flourishing at the expense of every other being on the planet is not moral it is speciesm.

I am well aware that we can cause pain to others. You have not said why doing so is actually wrong. At best you have said it is not preferred or convenient and has become no more than a social fashion. Look, I do not think you are being condescending on purpose but you are completely wrong. I know exactly what the state of moral argumentation is among the best scholars through ought history. I am not for a second suggesting you are unintelligent but you are really not knowledgeable about this issue. That is proven by simply applying your irrational standards. I hope you can see the failures the generate and mine do not. All the way back to Israel, Greece, and Rome men of learning have classified at least much of morality as being against objective standards. This is not new or rocket science. Truth has burdens, your claims do not meat them. If God exists then mine do. I know exactly what your saying and I know exactly why it can't possibly be true. If you wish I can supply some of the best philosophers in history in their own words adding to what I have said.

It is not simply that your are incorrect, it is there is not even a theoretical possibility you can be correct.



Not one thing here makes any act ever committed actually wrong. It may make them unpopular, it may make them undesirable, against a social convention, or against an intuition. What it can't possibly do is make murder is wrong a true statement.

Let me illustrate this another way. Empathy is at it's core an opinion. Hitler thought wiping out the evil Jews was an empathetic act that led to a greater good in the long run. By your standards above how was he wrong. Whose empathy are we to use as the basis for law, popular opinion, mine, yours, Hitler's, Muhammad's, or Billy Graham's? Your morality has an illusory, ambiguous, and moving target for a foundation.

I think you may be confusing the ontological argument for moral truth with how do secular humans resolve moral issues.



Then will anyone's sense of apathy do? Are you satisfied if Charlie mansion's sense of apathy is the standard? I am a veteran and have seen people so devoid of moral sanity that their sense of apathy would be what most would call evil. I don't mean a slight minority either. I mean a huge proportion of humanity.

I was aware of everything you have said long before you said it. This is a description of how humanity has at times resolved moral issues. It has nothing what so ever to do with moral fact.

Not one thing you have suggested has the slightest power to make rape is actually wrong a true statement. That reminds me of something. You said where no victim is present that no moral wrong has been committed. Then why do we lock people up for a long period of time for attempted murder. We even lock people up for thinking evil things. The other day I heard in Britain a man was jailed for drawing pictures of children in weird scenarios. No child saw it, it was not on public display, no one was hurt. Or how about a victim who was also sentient but no wrong was charged. When a dolphin forcibly copulates with another dolphin by your standards they should be arrested.





I am pretty sure I see why you are not getting this. I have grown to like you and so it may be best to summarize this discussion this way.


You are describing how some groups of humanity may have resolved ethical issues when necessary. That is not what I was talking about.

When Stalin kills 20 million people or a little girl is raped you, me, and 99% of humanity believes they have done something objectively wrong. That belief has been in poems, songs, literature, dissertations, moral commands, legal foundations, philosophical discourses, and theological texts since they existed.

Your discussing epistemology not ontology. Your claims reduce what Stalin did to acts against social fashions or conventions and not actually immoral truths. I would hate to think the free-world only had that as the motivation for stopping Hitler and fortunately we had God and that is what Britain's, France's, and the United States leaders appealed to for justification, not apathy or the ability to put our selves in another's place. They said he had violated absolute moral truth and that is justification for using force to stop another not what you have said.

Nothing you have said rises above arbitrary opinion. That is however all that is left if God does not exist and my entire point. So if you are satisfied with that then there is no contention between us.

The main difference between you and I on the matter is this. I view the moral standpoint is only possible to view through the eyes of the victim. For example with your gnat example. From the point of view of the gnat then it is no less morally wrong (in fact more so I would bet) to kill a gnat rather than a million humans. However from a human perspective it would be far more grossly atrocious to have killed humans rather than a gnat. Morality only exists in the form of function and perspective at least that is the point I'm arguing from.

Its much like the speed of light in a universe of darkness. Would the speed of light still be the same even if there was no light? So far in physics we think so. The same is applied here. Is it morally wrong from the point of view of the humans for god to kill every human? Yes. unequivocally yes.

You simply cannot take us out of the equation. What is moral for one subset or species may not be particularly moral to the next. And in terms of sociopaths and psychopaths its a little bit different. They are in a way defective and therefore are amoral (to exist without morals rather than immoral which is simply not moral).

It runs deeper than simply "opinion". It is innate within us given the specifics. On very specific instances then there is "opinion" and even cultural differences. For example my moral compass will undoubtable be different than someone else's. Just as my sense of taste is also different. However would you argue that taste is simply opinionated and is not subjective to "real" existence?

 

[1robin]

Nothing in this thread that I know of. I’m still waiting for you to respond “Indisputable Rational Evidence that god exists” thread though.

I will try and get to that thread next. Remind me if I forget.

It’s involved in your claim that morality doesn’t come from us. I’m trying to show you that it does, and how it does. The reason we can and do claim that a person is abnormal is that they differ from the norm in some way. The fact that we have a norm is a good indication that there are certain things we value (“good” things”) and certain things we don’t, and/or that we think are harmful or wrong (“bad” things). A person that we consider sociopathic or psychopathic, for example, is a person that we deem to be lacking in empathy, which is one of the cornerstones of morality. Without empathy, we are unable to place ourselves in someone else’s shoes and imagine how they would feel in a given situation. We find a lack of empathy in a human being to be abnormal and the actions that follow from that to be immoral in many cases because they are quite often harmful.

There are three possibilities to the moral argument.
1. God exists so that absolute morality exists independent of personal opinion.
2. It is almost universal among scholars that there is either a God and so objective moral truths exist or that God does not exist so neither do moral absolute truths. The second option here is that God doe snot exist and I know of a grand total of one person hat supports this and he even admits he assumes it. This is also the worst choice of the three.
3. The last choice is what I think you have adopted. That morals are only ethical statements contrived through opinion (and they are pure opinion no matter what technical terminology is used to make it something beyond opinion). It isn't anything beyond opinion and preference.

1. In number one the dictate that murder is wrong is an absolute truth.
2. In your number three the statement that murder is wrong can't possibly be known and does not have even a theoretical basis for it ever being actually objectively true. This is at best contrived ethics and not moral truth.

As another example, let’s think of a child to whom you are trying to teach a value or moral lesson to. More times than not, when you’re trying to explain to say a 4-year old, why we don’t hit each other, we’ll ask them “How do you feel when someone hits you?” to illustrate the point. I went through this just the other day with my niece.

That is a only a method designed to show why something is true. It is not a method by which the truth of the thing is founded. That explanation is also not capable of making hurting another actually wrong. It only proves that the child would not like the action done to him. But pointing out what the child would not like makes nothing actually immoral. For something to actually be wrong a transcendent standard must exists by which to justify that claim. Pointing out the undesirability of an act is not it.

If you say that evolution is so ambiguous as to render it meaningless then you’re just wrong. Why is “theory” in capital letters?

I knew you wqould ask that. The reason it was in caps was to distinguish what is wrong with the theory as created by men from what actually occurs in nature. Evolution I sure happens but not everything in man's theory about it is true.

I don’t know that atheists do mention Craig more than Christians do. I can’t say that I’ve seen anyone mention him more than you do. I don’t lend him or his arguments all that much credence and I despise quote mining.

What is the difference in providing expert testimony as is constantly done in legal cases and quote mining? How could it possibly be invalid to illustrate what he experts say about something?

I don’t know what building a military to beat the Russians has to do with anything. Could you elaborate?

I was quite brief here. It was an analogy to point out that I believe Craig is so often bashed by atheists because he is one of the greatest threats to their world view. People with no persuasive power are ignored not constantly referenced and attacked..

Evolution isn’t an explanation of everything.

I have yet to see anything that a theist claims as evidence that God exists that concerns biology hat some evolutionist has not strained or broken credulity to make evolution responsible for.

Our development is absolutely tied in with evolution though, there’s no way it couldn’t be.

I am sure some aspects are. As I said though evolutionists attempt to get it to explain everything it theoretically could produce. I have seen it used to explain benevolence, altruism, morality, even multiple personality disorders, homosexuality (which is perfectly not a survival advantage), and as in the attempt I provided the recognition of ascetic quality. It seems to be some kind of universal solvent.

It’s a result of evolutionary developments in many cases, rather than being programmed by evolution.

It is not relevant what aspect of evolution is claimed to have produced X, it is the fact that attempts are made to make it account for every X possible.

I said nothing about female models anywhere. But if you don’t understand reproductive fitness and how preference plays a role in it, I suggest you read up on the evidence. Go look up pheromones while you’re at it. I assure you, there is empirical evidence available.

First that argument was just an example of competence utterly destroying one of those evolution does everything claims. I did not suggest that evolution does nothing but instead that it is used far beyond what evidence can validate. I acknowledge that pheromones exist but I do not see how happy accidents are a better explanation than design for them.

Looks like you have a lot of reading to do.

Those were Craig's words but regardless I do not see how they indicate I must read anything.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

I’m going to leave this alone because I never mentioned models and I don’t see what this has to do with morality.

IT was an example of these speculative theories that try and make evolution into a Swiss army knife than can do anything and why it was utterly devoid of merit as to indicate the efforts to ascribe morality as it is practiced to evolution alone.

Naturalism is testable. The reality we all share collectively, is all we have to go on.

Naturalism as a sole worldview is not only testable it is not true. Aspects of it are true, it's use to explain reality on it's own are a dismal failure.

We determine where morality comes from by studying psychology, history, sociology, anthropology, and neuropsychology to name a few. On an individual level, we determine morality by analyzing the result of actions on those around us. The vast majority of people do this, including yourself.

No that is how morality is attempted to be comprehended. It is not a method than can produce moral absolutes. This is an example of what i meant by no mater what terminology you dress it up in it can't possibly be anything but opinion. If it is opinion at best then who's opinion is right. The majority, the average, the strongest groups, Mother Theresa's, Genghis Khan's, or Charlie mansions. The Nazis used the exact same methods that you described but arrived a very different conclusion. Why are they wrong and another group right.

See above. Also, see the other descriptions of morality given within the thread (Monk of Reason is a good one to start with).

That was not even a description of moral foundations. It was more of a dissertation on how some groups historical have resolved moral issues but nothing he said had the slightest power to make any moral ever agreed to by anyone or everyone actually true.

I understand your and his claims perfectly. You reduce morality to an opinion based human self serving set of ethics which have no ability to actually be objective true. If I murdered someone the best your system can claim is I acted socially unfashionable but actually did not that was actually wrong. Thank God humanity has not all adopted that view.

Maybe you could explain how your view of morality as dictated from some invisible authority figure is a system of morality at all. Because I don't see that it is. It is simply obedience to authority. I'd go even further to say that it is subjective and arbitrary, which is the very thing you are trying to argue against, because it is subject to the whims and desires of a single entity that is far removed from ourselves. Just look at your defense of Biblical slavery as an example of this.

If God dictates that murder is wrong then murder is actually wrong. In no place, at any time, and for every human murder is actually wrong and what is more you will be perfectly accountable for it. Now if that does not determine what moral truth is then moral truth does not exist.

Since no one apparently will ever answer my prove X is wrong without God, let me ask another question.

If there was a planet with humans on it but had an equator that was impassable. One sides evolutionary and reasoning path led them to conclude that murder was wrong. The other side had a few quirks in their evolutionary path and reasoning that led them to believe that murder was fine because they reasoned it had long term benefits (like the assurance that resources would not be overwhelmed by the needs of a trillion people, or killing the weak and infirm would create a more hardy and healthy race). Now using your criteria prove to me which side is actually right right.

By your criteria they would both be IMO.


I will propose a method for eliminating the wasted time of trying to prove objective moral truths exist without God that I do not think you would object to.

1. I claim that if God exists then his prohibitions are absolute and there exists no situation the subjects under that prohibition would ever be right in committing murder (unjustified killing).

2. You believe that morals come from human evolution and reasoning. This equals opinion and can never produce actual moral known moral facts. BTW I agree with this if God does not exist, which is my point.

Can you live with that?

Either way i desire an answer to my question above.

 

[roger1440]

Because they fit together like a puzzle. And ive researched a pretty good handful...they either lack a little truth here and there...or have added plain BS...search for yourself. See what you find.

All religions are not the same. Here is a picture of what one man’s religion did. I didn’t read this in a book. I saw the smoke from these buildings for two weeks. At least eight people from my town died in those buildings. Some peoples interpretation of religion is extremely perverted.

 

[ladybug77]

And thats the added BS. I didnt say all religions are 100% correct...please understand this. Murder and violence are not good. Destruction is not good. Love is good. Bottom line.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes. Truth runs throughout all of those.

Is this truth something that can be put into words? Because the diversity of those religions is marked. Their acknowledgement of higher forces, and the nature of those forces is completely different. I am surmising that you're making a fluffy motherhood statement without any core to it, which can't actually be backed up but kinda sounds nice on the face of things...

Am I wrong?

 

[outhouse]

All religions are not the same. Here is a picture of what one man’s religion did.

That was not what one mans religion did.

That is what some religious extremist did.

 

[ladybug77]

It can put into words...but its difficult. Im working on a book. Give me the rest of my natural born life. Lol. But seriously...i seeked God...i recieved his Grace. I follow his commandments, and i dont agree with violence. I believe love conquers all. So we are in the book here....just on a different page...so thats why we cant see eye to eye quite yet. but thats okay.

 

[outhouse]

2. It is almost universal among scholars that there is either a God and so objective moral truths exist or that God does not exist so neither do moral absolute truths
:

You cannot keep making these unsubstantiated false claims without a source.

It is against forum rules.

 

[ladybug77]

That was not what one mans religion did.

That is what some religious extremist did.

Thats true. I personally believe it was treason. We have been having a holy war sense the beginning of time. Quite sad really.

 

[outhouse]

[youtube]MlnnWbkMlbg[/youtube]
3.3.3 Atheism: A History of God (Part 1) - YouTube

This does a great job of explaining the history of the god concept.

 

[ladybug77]

1robin is a solid brick...good foundation, but dont try to argue with a baptist! All do respect... But in my personal experience...they do NOT budge. They believe what they believe...and if you dont believe EXACTLY the same...you NEVER win a debate. I appreciate the effort though!! 1robin is only trying to save people! The intensions are good!! But perhaps...the approach is off a little?? Speak softly, and walk with a big stick my friend.

 

[outhouse]

1robin is a solid brick...good foundation, but dont try to argue with a baptist! All do respect... But in my personal experience...they do NOT budge. They believe what they believe...and if you dont believe EXACTLY the same...you NEVER win a debate. I appreciate the effort though!! 1robin is only trying to save people! The intensions are good!! But perhaps...the approach is off a little?? Speak softly, and walk with a big stick my friend.

Its similar to a YEC.

Its not about winning as much as not letting them get away with posting misinformation.

He was easy to box in a corner and watch him run away from knowledge and education he couldn't refute.

 

[ladybug77]

This is awesome!! So you dont believe in God outhouse?? Just curious

 

[ladybug77]

Am i allowed to ask that?? I kinda never read the rules. Lol. Opps. I should do that. Well anyhow...i believe in God. I believe in ONE God...and smaller Gods...that have power...but less power. I cant prove God to you or anyone else...and im cool with that!! Woo hoo!! indo find it odd that 'athiest' join a religious forum though....if they truly didnt care...or didnt believe AT ALL...they wouldnt be here....at all. Eh?

 

[outhouse]

This is awesome!! So you dont believe in God outhouse?? Just curious

I think ancient people created gods. Canaanites had their many gods most Christians look at as mythology, yet Israelites evolved from them. And kept the previous Canaanites deities.

This family of dieties evolved into one god after the reforms around 622 BC by King Josiah. So for more then 600 years Israelites were polytheistic.

Even then it took monotheism hundreds of years to take hold within all the Jewish population.


Watch the vid I posted, believe it or not, what Karen Armstrong says this guy is using, isn't up for debate within credible modern scholarships.


I would never want you to switch your theistic position, that would not be my intention. I am just a history lover