INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[kk1974]

Man could never comprehend what God is or what the big picture is and it was meant to be that way. God made time and He is outside of it. Outside time something as in God exists and always has. Our minds do not have the capacity to ever understand what it would be like outside of time and God wants it that way.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Man could never comprehend what God is or what the big picture is and it was meant to be that way. God made time and He is outside of it. Outside time something as in God exists and always has. Our minds do not have the capacity to ever understand what it would be like outside of time and God wants it that way.

How do you know God wants it that way??

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How do you know God wants it that way??

Imho, it is so man could develop self awareness.

The divine omnipresent spirit of God may be omniscient, but it incarnates to create a differentiated time-space perspective of reality that is dualistic....there is me and there is the cosmos...two separate things according to man...only one according to Cosmos...just the Cosmos.

Now why does God want the development of self awareness in man?

So that after man develops self awareness, and further discovers what and who he really is, the evolved soul self awareness can reintegrate with the Cosmic unity to form a spiritual self aware entity, aka Angel.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Imho, it is so man could develop self awareness.

The divine omnipresent spirit of God may be omniscient, but it incarnates to create a differentiated time-space perspective of reality that is dualistic....there is me and there is the cosmos...two separate things according to man...only one according to Cosmos...just the Cosmos.

Now why does God want the development of self awareness in man?

So that after man develops self awareness, and further discovers what and who he really is, the evolved soul self awareness can reintegrate with the Cosmic unity to form a spiritual self aware entity, aka Angel.

Why not just make it that way from the start?

 

[shawn001]

Man could never comprehend what God is or what the big picture is and it was meant to be that way. God made time and He is outside of it. Outside time something as in God exists and always has. Our minds do not have the capacity to ever understand what it would be like outside of time and God wants it that way.

"God wants it that way."

Your speaking for your God? Are you claiming the attributes of your God?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why not just make it that way from the start?

There was no start....see my sig. line..but since you are seeing it from the perspective of 3D time space man's dualistic mind, let me just say it has always been the way it is...

 

[Thief]

There was no start....see my sig. line..but since you are seeing it from the perspective of 3D time space man's dualistic mind, let me just say it has always been the way it is...

Nice signature.
I would agree that One Item is not born of flesh as we are.
Not begotten of the physical as we are.

The beginning would lean to the substance.
The eternal leans to the Almighty.

Shall we agree?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

^^ We shall my friend Thief...that's understanding you share my understanding that the beginnings that lead to substance, and the endings of such substance go on without beginning or end..ie. there never was a first beginning of substance....except in the mind of the mortal's 3D finite dualisitc perspective..

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

There was no start....see my sig. line..but since you are seeing it from the perspective of 3D time space man's dualistic mind, let me just say it has always been the way it is...

No I'm pointing that creation by a diety in the state that we see now with an idea of progression which is what you have implied knowingly or unknowingly in your last post is unnecessary if the goal is completely feasible by the diety from the very start. It's not dualistic or spacetime. It's simply if I already know the answers to a test why study anyways?

 

[camanintx]

Man could never comprehend what God is or what the big picture is and it was meant to be that way. God made time and He is outside of it. Outside time something as in God exists and always has. Our minds do not have the capacity to ever understand what it would be like outside of time and God wants it that way.

What do you think "time" represents?

 

[1robin]

Sure, but you did not correctly identify them. There is either moral realism- the view that there are such things as objective moral truths/facts/duties/whatever, and moral anti-realism-the view that there are not.

Fine, use these. I have al but had it with semantic technicalities. The only possible way the first one (which is by far he overwhelming human conclusion) can be true is if God exists.

However, there are quite a few forms of moral realism, and divine command theory- the view that moral truths/facts/duties are "given by a transcendent moral agent" is only one.

Well I am distinguishing between viable positions and irrational ones. If I was to address every bizarre position man can invent independently from reason, it would be prohibitive.

What everyone believes is not relevant, and what everyone believes intuitively even less so.

That is not true. What everyone believe is relevant. It is certainly not proof. That is why court rooms, democracies, and formal scientific debates rely heavily on popular, majority, or expert opinion. It is a weird modern tactic to equate any uncertainty with complete irrelevance, which BTW would doom every claim ever made about anything beyond the fact that we think.

Then take the word of someone with a degree in philosophy that many, many, many, many moral philosophers have argued that there are objective moral truths/facts/duties for reasons OTHER than there existing a supernatural entity who dictates morality.

I am sure there are many. I am also sure the percentage is so low that in maybe a thousand hours of debate I have seen only one and he admitted he assumed it. Most emphatically deny moral objective truth exists, and honestly so if no God does.

A terrible recap of the debate, if it is the one I'm thinking of. But given that you are an admitted WLC fanboy, and clearly quite unfamiliar with moral philosophy in general (since Harris is the only non-divine command theory moral realist you're aware of), your assessment here obviously doesn't count for a whole lot.

I don't know me level of familiarity absolutely but I can tell you that up until a year or two ago I have seen every relevant debate of this type I could find on utube and google video, I currently am reading WLC a reasonable response and a general theistic debate tomb that is maybe 700 pages long and 2/3rds is devoted to non-theists. I can't imagine that being said to be less than very familiar. I even have many of the transcripts and read them quite often. There was certainly no mischaracterization of my comments about Harris. Craig kept countering everything he said until he gave up and said he assumed it was true. He tried to justify that by saying science assumes quite a bit. This only lessons my confidence in science and does not improve his claims at all.

In any case, since moral realism is false, this is sort of a moot point; but one that still needed to be made, given how frequently you make this patently false assertion about divine command theory being the only viable form of moral realism (its also ironic that, objectively speaking, its quite possibly the least compelling form of moral realism).

How In the world can you know that moral objective truths do not exist. Even if true you have no capacity what so ever to claim to know it. I never said anything about divine command theory being the only viable form of anything. I said it is true (or at least it's core would be) of God if God existed. I have no idea where you got anything in this last paragraph.

 

[1robin]

I suggest that since conceptual language is merely a symbolic representation of the real,

I know not about the rest of your claim but this statement closely represents what I think about language but have never articulated. A bear remains unaffected by any category or label we apply to him. A client is guilty or innocent regardless of a procedural objection or even the verdict. I care about what bears are and the guilt of ideas not what is true about words used to describe them.

 

[1robin]

I do not know whether or not naturalism is true, but if it is true, obviously. morality is a human invention. If a God exists, no one knows exactly what his morals all, and Christians often disagree about moral issues such as abortion, the death penalty, same-sex marriage, and physician assisted suicide.

You started of great but apparently realized the direction you were headed in and took an epistemological off ramp from the ontological freeway. My claims are valid even if no one on earth had any ide what God thought or was. However I think we have justification for believing we at least in general understand God's moral requirements, but that is another issue.

Common sense, logic, and reason indicate that the truth does not depend upon what anyone believes, and exists independent of what anyone believes. A large percentage of Christians used to believe that colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women were right, and they were wrong. In 1890, practically all Christians believed that wearing skimpy bathing suits at beaches was immoral, and they were wrong.

NO those attributes comprise exactly what one believes and do not have objective reference points. They and any other words you can include would all equal opinion, and without an external reference all opinions would be equally valid because all or almost all employed the exact same method but arrived at different conclusions. First prove Christians in general said anything about any bathing suits. Once does prove they were wrong. Are you of the opinion revealing clothing has no moral impact at all. Any teen ager who ever lived can tell you that one is wrong.

How many people believe something does not have anything to do with the truth, largely because humans are fallible, and are not perfect, and often have poor cognitive abilities. If you had been born 500 years ago, and had become a Christian, you would surely be arguing some moral issues much differently than you do now.

I know of no moral issues that I would have drawn different conclusions about 500 years ago. Of course new diabolic actions are created al the time but my basic views would always deal with each from the same objective framework.

 

[1robin]

We can conclude from the evidence that we are not brains in a vat. Its possible that our senses are all wrong and that we are in the matrix but it is pointless to do so. It boils down to a moot issue otherwise.

That is absolutely impossible which is why it is still a paradox in philosophy today. I do not deny that view is unproductive, but we were talking about standards not what they produce. Your views include faith, many of them more faith than I can muster. You cannot make them and condemn faith at the same time, or shouldn't.

However belief in god is not the same thing. It is not a moot point to be skeptical of god or to simply have a baseline assumption that it is false till evidence is provided otherwise. In your example not believing in god is the rational equivalent. Not belief.

Many claims in science rely a lot more on faith given less evidence than the bibles core doctrines require. The burden of faith is only the absence of a defeater. However my claims are best fit for the evidence. I know of no Christian that things the bible is right in totality until proven wrong. They do however take the impeccable record of reliability of it's verifiable claims and extrapolate to the unverifiable parts. The same is done in all forms of academic study.

Moral foundations can exist without god. Saying they can't is like saying economics can't exist without god. It doesn't make sense when you learn what morals are. Value is something that is assigned rather than inherent. We can assign and inherent value within parameters or criteria. For example we can conclude that all life has value so from our perspective life has inherent value. However from another perspective, say from that of a rock, life itself has no inherent value.

No it isn't, which is why no one has claimed the latter and most agree with the former. You can use all types of reasoning that is arbitrary and compiled independently from truth. It still equals opinion and all opinions would be equal. Why is rat opinion and or value not equal to yours since both are made independent from objective truth?

The last statement made no sense on a few levels. First you are the captain of your own ship even if you are religious. Or at least you choose to follow what someone else came up with. Thinking for yourself rather than herd mentality is what prevents disasters from happening in many cases. And obvious political bias aside the government's function is to help and nothing about it is innately incapable of helping.

We all form beliefs based on the claims of others for most of our conclusions. NO one claims my way or the highway is a rational foundation for morality. Atheists use majority opinion or might makes right, Christians use objective principles. Which is better?

So yeah actually upon retrospective your sentence is correct. Saying we should pilot our own live makes as much logical sense as the government coming to help. I'll make good decisions based on my own sense of justice and rational thinking and the government will continue to give disaster relief next time a hurricane rips up hundreds of thousands of homes.

Concerning morality you can not do a good job and even if you could you would never know you did. You lack an external standard capable of verifying right from wrong. You can only assume something was right or wrong. In fact good and evil are meaningless categories without God and become useless illusions fobbed off on us as truths, as the philosopher of science so honestly put it.

wat

I have little use for personal commentary and no use for it used alone. Stick to the principles at hand please.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That is absolutely impossible which is why it is still a paradox in philosophy today. I do not deny that view is unproductive, but we were talking about standards not what they produce. Your views include faith, many of them more faith than I can muster. You cannot make them and condemn faith at the same time, or shouldn't.

It is possible to deduct from the things we can obtain. For example it is useless and irrational to assume something for which there is no evidence. That is why we can assume that we are not brains in a vat. Is it possible to ever know absolutely for sure? No. That requires whats called esoteric knowledge rather than esoteric knowledge. There is currently no way to obtain esoteric knowledge or "direct" knowledge.

The same cannot be said of religion, which is what you were trying to double back on.

Many claims in science rely a lot more on faith given less evidence than the bibles core doctrines require. The burden of faith is only the absence of a defeater. However my claims are best fit for the evidence. I know of no Christian that things the bible is right in totality until proven wrong. They do however take the impeccable record of reliability of it's verifiable claims and extrapolate to the unverifiable parts. The same is done in all forms of academic study.

What are some examples for the bolded part. I have a funny feeling your going to say evolution and I shall stop you right there as there is an insurmountable amount of evidence for it and make it one of the most important and solid biological theories ever. In fact it is most likely the most important and most functional. If its something other than evolution then I would like to know. Though please refrain from theoretical physics as it is not regarded as "fact" so much as general science is.

No christian I know of thinks of Christianity as "wrong until proven true". They fall back on the concept of "faith".

No it isn't, which is why no one has claimed the latter and most agree with the former. You can use all types of reasoning that is arbitrary and compiled independently from truth. It still equals opinion and all opinions would be equal. Why is rat opinion and or value not equal to yours since both are made independent from objective truth?

Objective truth? Where do you get this?

But yes it is. Explain specifically what it is that you are having trouble grasping so we can make this more productive.

We all form beliefs based on the claims of others for most of our conclusions. NO one claims my way or the highway is a rational foundation for morality. Atheists use majority opinion or might makes right, Christians use objective principles. Which is better?

Atheists don't believe anything as a whole as we are not a "group". We are a non-group or "other" category. The only thing that really ties us together is the fact that we don't fit into any other category (the ones with belief). So how an atheist defines their morals is up to them. I use my own empathy and granted natural moral compass that I have evolved to have. I also use my own judgement on moral decisions and so do you in many ways. You simply don't see it.

For example do you think it is wrong for a husband to rape his wife? Yes or no?

Concerning morality you can not do a good job and even if you could you would never know you did. You lack an external standard capable of verifying right from wrong. You can only assume something was right or wrong. In fact good and evil are meaningless categories without God and become useless illusions fobbed off on us as truths, as the philosopher of science so honestly put it.

To have this problem one must first have made the assumption that there is a definite and definable "right" and "wrong". Many philosphies reject this totally. As do I.

Is it wrong for a man to have stolen from a struggling store? Is it still wrong if the man did it to provide food for his family because he lost his job? Is it still wrong if the owner of the store cheats on his taxes and embezzled himself? Is it wrong if the owner beats his wife? Is it wrong if its only a .50cent item vs 100 dollars worth of merchandise?

Is it wrong to cut down a tree? Is it wrong to break a rock? I could go on. We have created parameters in which have functional usage and then we have evolved over time to have empathy and naturally selected tendencies to follow these moral codes etched in our psyche. Have you ever heard of a conscience?

I have little use for personal commentary and no use for it used alone. Stick to the principles at hand please.

too much? Well how about defending the near infinite amount of irony in the statement? Or provide evidence to back it up as common knowledge dictates the opposite.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Fine, use these. I have al but had it with semantic technicalities. The only possible way the first one (which is by far he overwhelming human conclusion) can be true is if God exists.

You don't want to phrase your contention such that it is clearly wrong from the get go- that the only possible way for moral realism to be true is for God is exist is clearly disproven; take any form of moral realism other than divine-command theory, and show that it is not internally contradictory. One wouldn't even need to show that it is true to disprove this claim; as long as there is AT LEAST ONE internally consistent non-divine command theory variety of moral realism, it is logically possible for moral realism to be true and God not exist.

Well I am distinguishing between viable positions and irrational ones. If I was to address every bizarre position man can invent independently from reason, it would be prohibitive.

That's fine. That still doesn't help you rule out the moral theories I've mentioned, as they are both viable and rational, even if they are ultimately false.

That is not true. What everyone believe is relevant. It is certainly not proof. That is why court rooms, democracies, and formal scientific debates rely heavily on popular, majority... opinion.

Yeah, they don't.

I am sure there are many. I am also sure the percentage is so low that in maybe a thousand hours of debate I have seen only one and he admitted he assumed it.

That's touching that you're "sure" about something you have no basis for forming any firm opinion about. There was a pew report of philosophy departments not that long ago, and if I remember correctly, the number of philosophers endorsing moral anti-realism/non-cognitivism was around 30-40%, a slight minority. If I can track it down I'll post it, but I'm having trouble finding it at the moment.

But again, this is just a footnote as even a clear consensus settles nothing here.

How In the world can you know that moral objective truths do not exist.

You want to review the arguments against moral realism? I'd be willing to summarize them at the very least, but not unless I'm sure that's what you want me to do. I'm not going to take the time if its going to be ignored.

I never said anything about divine command theory being the only viable form of anything.

Yeah, you did. You've claimed numerous times that objective moral truths/facts/duties/whatever only exist if God does. This is the same as claiming that divine command theory is the only viable variety of moral realism.

Unfortunately, you never bother to take the obvious necessary step towards substantiating this- ruling out other forms of moral realism- much less the more pertinent step of showing that ANY form of moral realism is true, i.e. that there are such things as objective moral truths/facts/duties.

 

[1robin]

It is possible to deduct from the things we can obtain. For example it is useless and irrational to assume something for which there is no evidence. That is why we can assume that we are not brains in a vat. Is it possible to ever know absolutely for sure? No. That requires whats called esoteric knowledge rather than esoteric knowledge. There is currently no way to obtain esoteric knowledge or "direct" knowledge.

Of course it is possible to deduce. That is exactly what Christians do. However all deductions have unequal reliability. You seem to allow very unreliable deductions if against faith and dismiss even very reliable deductions if for faith. I have no problem with your standards but I do with your application.

However science (at least the parts used to counter Christianity) constantly make claims independently of evidence. They will even make claims contradictory to evidence and some that seem to grant the impossible.

I have no problem assuming were are what we think we are but if you are going to be hyperbolically restrictive for faith claims then you will have to abide by the same standards and that will place you back in the matrix.

The same cannot be said of religion, which is what you were trying to double back on.

That is my point. Much of my claims are based on far les faith given far more evidence than yours. yet you deny mine and approve of your anyway.

What are some examples for the bolded part. I have a funny feeling your going to say evolution and I shall stop you right there as there is an insurmountable amount of evidence for it and make it one of the most important and solid biological theories ever. In fact it is most likely the most important and most functional. If its something other than evolution then I would like to know. Though please refrain from theoretical physics as it is not regarded as "fact" so much as general science is.

Evolution in general is very well established occurrence. Some of it's details are absurd and exist without any evidence (for example it depends on abiogenesis without a single known example of it). That is not among my examples though.


These are:
1. Multiverses.
2. A natural cause for the universe.
3. Oscillating universes.
4. Eternal recurrence.
5. The rejection of the supernatural.
6. Crediting the natural with creation of morality.

No christian I know of thinks of Christianity as "wrong until proven true". They fall back on the concept of "faith".

I have no idea what you mean by this. Of course any non-biased person would give a book with as many historical corroborations as the bible credit for being accurate even in it's non-verifiable claims. Courts operate on the exact same principle, and science is founded on a similar concept.

Objective truth? Where do you get this?

The only source there is God.

That was not the issue.

1. You, I , and almost everyone believes humans have greater value than rats, cows, or chickens. At least since you maximize you happiness at their expense I hope you do.
2. That belief however is based on nothing and can't be true unless God exists. Once again the theist has objective foundations for believing X and you have none. You must instead assume it without any justification. That makes your belief speciesm and just as wrong as racism in it's worst form.

But yes it is. Explain specifically what it is that you are having trouble grasping so we can make this more productive.

I have no trouble understanding exactly what you said and the specific insurmountable problems with it.

Atheists don't believe anything as a whole as we are not a "group". We are a non-group or "other" category. The only thing that really ties us together is the fact that we don't fit into any other category (the ones with belief). So how an atheist defines their morals is up to them. I use my own empathy and granted natural moral compass that I have evolved to have. I also use my own judgment on moral decisions and so do you in many ways. You simply don't see it.

There are many common principles to atheism. You all for example deny God's existence and that comes with thousands of things that must be true if it is. Let's say you and me are the only people on the planet. You used empathy to claim murder is wrong, I used evolutionary principles that indicate I need to eradicate any competition for resources and since you have no God given worth but are instead a bag of atoms then there is nothing wrong with killing you. Convince me I am wrong.

Hitler used the exact same methodology you did yet arrived at the opposite conclusion's. He actually thought he was benefitting man as a whole by eradicating Jews and the infirm. You have two choices.

1. Act consistently with your methodology and since he used the exact same means to arrive at another opinion and there is no objective standard to indicate which is true, you must let him be.
2. Or act completely inconsistent with your world view claim he is objectively wrong (which is impossible without God) and stop him.

Which one is it?

As usual the Christian has all the advantages. I can say Hitler has violated an objective moral law and is actually wrong. I can stop him with perfect justification.

For example do you think it is wrong for a husband to rape his wife? Yes or no?

I do but that is not the point. It is actually only wrong if God exists. If God does not the man is only acting contradictory to your opinion and is not actually wrong.

To have this problem one must first have made the assumption that there is a definite and definable "right" and "wrong". Many philosophies reject this totally. As do I.

And you should. Your worldview contains no actual right and wrong. This allows what we see. Morality uncoupled from objective foundations is now free to be tethered anywhere the more powerful of authorities wishes it to be. This is not morality. It is moral insanity, but at least it is consistent with your position. It is insufficient to guaranty justice, in fact justice is now opinion based and means little it's self beyond what is in your fallible mind. Not to mention evolution has made you value survival not ethical goodness.

Is it wrong for a man to have stolen from a struggling store? Is it still wrong if the man did it to provide food for his family because he lost his job? Is it still wrong if the owner of the store cheats on his taxes and embezzled himself? Is it wrong if the owner beats his wife? Is it wrong if its only a .50cent item vs 100 dollars worth of merchandise?

The point is that it only can be if God exist. There exists no possibility what so ever any of these actions are actually wrong without God. At best they are only socially unfashionable.

Is it wrong to cut down a tree? Is it wrong to break a rock? I could go on. We have created parameters in which have functional usage and then we have evolved over time to have empathy and naturally selected tendencies to follow these moral codes etched in our psyche. Have you ever heard of a conscience?

No matter what efforts you use to obscure the problem only with God is clarity even possible on any level. There are no answers, in fact it is impossible there could be without God to your questions. The amplification of ambiguity is the mark of a failed argument.

too much? Well how about defending the near infinite amount of irony in the statement? Or provide evidence to back it up as common knowledge dictates the opposite.

What the heck? You have already admitted the absurd limitations your views have and the advantages of mine are contingent but obvious. Which part do you require additional explanation for?

 

[1robin]

You don't want to phrase your contention such that it is clearly wrong from the get go- that the only possible way for moral realism to be true is for God is exist is clearly disproven; take any form of moral realism other than divine-command theory, and show that it is not internally contradictory. One wouldn't even need to show that it is true to disprove this claim; as long as there is AT LEAST ONE internally consistent non-divine command theory variety of moral realism, it is logically possible for moral realism to be true and God not exist.

Well I have seen no evidence of something from nothing, but I see plenty for nothing from something. Instead of whatever that was please post the claims of moral realism that is true without God.

Your objection was about my label. Call it whatever you wish, I am worn out with this meaningless type of discussion. You did not show any logical fault with my claim.

That's fine. That still doesn't help you rule out the moral theories I've mentioned, as they are both viable and rational, even if they are ultimately false.

Quoting the label of a theory doe snot merit disproving. You must (and in years of people mentioning them I do not recall ever actually being given one of them) supply a theory before I can evaluate it.

Yeah, they don't.

These face palm things are just about more than I can justify putting up with. The only reason I have not ended the discussion is they do come with actual claims at times but are no less unattractive and destructive to your credibility. Don't use an icon to make an argument that you couldn't.

That's touching that you're "sure" about something you have no basis for forming any firm opinion about. There was a pew report of philosophy departments not that long ago, and if I remember correctly, the number of philosophers endorsing moral anti-realism/non-cognitivism was around 30-40%, a slight minority. If I can track it down I'll post it, but I'm having trouble finding it at the moment.

For goodness sakes I made an assumption you had some merit to your claim and you are arguing with that. Not to mention that you have no access to what you need to in order to know what you claimed to, and not to mention my claim was a mirror of yours and if unjustifiable yours goes down with it. I do not even need to counter you, your are committing intellectual suicide without my help. I have no problem granting your numbers but they have no relevance. They prove nothing and indicate my position has more support anyway. The majority of scholars fall into the two categories I gave not yours.

But again, this is just a footnote as even a clear consensus settles nothing here.

I do not know what this means.

You want to review the arguments against moral realism? I'd be willing to summarize them at the very least, but not unless I'm sure that's what you want me to do. I'm not going to take the time if its going to be ignored.

You say that objective morals can be founded if God does not exist. I cannot evaluate what most say is impossible unless it is provided. Regardless you cannot possibly know objective morals do not exist.

Yeah, you did. You've claimed numerous times that objective moral truths/facts/duties/whatever only exist if God does. This is the same as claiming that divine command theory is the only viable variety of moral realism.

No I did not. I said it was why objective moral truths can only exist if God does. I did not say anything about the fact that if he did not all types of moral systems may be valid but never objectively true. I believe God exists and almost everyone believes objective morals exist. They can only be true together and the reasons have to do in some aspects on divine command theory. However it is theoretically (actually I don't think so but allow it anyway) that God does not exist and so all manner of moral aberrations are possible. That is precisely the fatal flaw with opinion based morality and one of the worst evils in human history.

Unfortunately, you never bother to take the obvious necessary step towards substantiating this- ruling out other forms of moral realism- much less the more pertinent step of showing that ANY form of moral realism is true, i.e. that there are such things as objective moral truths/facts/duties.

I have no need to rule out every theory ever made to believe one is by far the best. Nor could I when they are never supplied. The concept is so futile I see no justification in my looking them up on my own. There is nothing in need of refuting until supplied.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Of course it is possible to deduce. That is exactly what Christians do. However all deductions have unequal reliability. You seem to allow very unreliable deductions if against faith and dismiss even very reliable deductions if for faith. I have no problem with your standards but I do with your application.

However science (at least the parts used to counter Christianity) constantly make claims independently of evidence. They will even make claims contradictory to evidence and some that seem to grant the impossible.

I have no problem assuming were are what we think we are but if you are going to be hyperbolically restrictive for faith claims then you will have to abide by the same standards and that will place you back in the matrix.

What is the process of logical deduction that leads you to believe in Christianity above any other religion or lack of one?

What are the reliable deductions for religion? What are the unreliable deductions for science?

What are the unrealistic claims of science that is used to counter Christianity that are made independent of evidence. (if its independent of evidence it isn't science so this seems especially confusing as a statement)

That is my point. Much of my claims are based on far les faith given far more evidence than yours. yet you deny mine and approve of your anyway.

What are some points of yours that are based in evidence that I have rejected and what are some points of mine that are based in folly that I seem to support as saying has evidence? I think this is more than likely a misrepresentation of what I have stated or it is a misunderstanding of what I have stated.

Evolution in general is very well established occurrence. Some of it's details are absurd and exist without any evidence (for example it depends on abiogenesis without a single known example of it). That is not among my examples though.


These are:
1. Multiverses.
2. A natural cause for the universe.
3. Oscillating universes.
4. Eternal recurrence.
5. The rejection of the supernatural.
6. Crediting the natural with creation of morality.

The difference is these things are actually based on evidence. And even with that evidence they are not considered "fact". No scientist will ever come up to you and say "we know for a fact muliverses exist". Much of science is dead end but we are very very very picky on what we call "fact" or reason.

Rejection of the supernatural specifically is logic based rather than science based. "Is it supported by evidence yes/no?" end of story. If there is no evidence then it is rejected. If there is then its no longer called supernatural but science.

We do know the way morality evolved. That is fact. Abiogensis also has a massive amount of evidence and far more each year is added on. It is very close to becoming fact. So I'm confused about this list.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Of course any non-biased person would give a book with as many historical corroborations as the bible credit for being accurate even in it's non-verifiable claims. Courts operate on the exact same principle, and science is founded on a similar concept.

Wrong. It is not an accurate historical book, nor is it an accurate science book and there is no evidence to support anything about its supernatural claims.

So to repeat there is no intellectual reasoning behind accepting the Bible's supernatural claims. We are disputing today about some of the historical facts even in the vague portions of the bible. And this is only in the new testimant. The old testimant was and is considered to be allegorical.

The only source there is God.

That was not the issue.

1. You, I , and almost everyone believes humans have greater value than rats, cows, or chickens. At least since you maximize you happiness at their expense I hope you do.
2. That belief however is based on nothing and can't be true unless God exists. Once again the theist has objective foundations for believing X and you have none. You must instead assume it without any justification. That makes your belief speciesm and just as wrong as racism in it's worst form.

You can't source god in an intellectual debate.

but
1. yes.
2. Actually there is a logical explanation. IT is the same reason why the normal person would choose to save their children over the lives of someone else's children. Its why we value the lives of direct family members more than that of strangers. And why even things such as racism and prejudice has run rampant in our societies. It is a mental mechanism called tribalism. We categorize things between "us" and "them". "We" are more important than "them" because it insures our own self preservation and that of our children. If I save a rat's life instead of my own or my children's I will not pass on my genes. The ones that display self preservation and tribalism tend to survive better in their own genetic groups.

So this creates a trend that shapes our own genetic lineage to trend towards putting more emphasis on the lives of our species rather than the lives of others.

There are many common principles to atheism. You all for example deny God's existence and that comes with thousands of things that must be true if it is. Let's say you and me are the only people on the planet. You used empathy to claim murder is wrong, I used evolutionary principles that indicate I need to eradicate any competition for resources and since you have no God given worth but are instead a bag of atoms then there is nothing wrong with killing you. Convince me I am wrong.

Hitler used the exact same methodology you did yet arrived at the opposite conclusion's. He actually thought he was benefitting man as a whole by eradicating Jews and the infirm. You have two choices.

1. Act consistently with your methodology and since he used the exact same means to arrive at another opinion and there is no objective standard to indicate which is true, you must let him be.
2. Or act completely inconsistent with your world view claim he is objectively wrong (which is impossible without God) and stop him.

Which one is it?

Your jumping to unsupported conclusions.

I have an innate moral compass. I don't have to justify it any further. I can subjectively deduct that it is wrong to kill others as that doesn't produce a society in which I want to live. If I collectively live with others that have the same mindset then we create laws and rules that others must abide by as to create order. That is the function of laws.

I need not a god to tell me how to feel.

In your example I would state that it is far better for us to work together for resources. If I was intent on killing you or stealing your necessary resources to survive then it is justifiable to kill me. Same as if you broke into my house and tried to kill me or my wife I would have no problem or moral hesitation to kill you or do whatever else was necessary to save my wife or myself. Why? Because it goes back to the evolutionary concept of wanting my DNA to be passed onto the next generation and to do that I must protect myself in order to mate, I must protect my mate to bear my children and I must protect my children so they can survive ans pass on their genes.

However I need not think about this as its innate to my instinct and moral compass.


How did I know Hitler would be brought into this eventually? Weird how he was a Christian and not an atheist and somehow came to the conclusions he did.

Perhaps you can tell me how he was a Christian and you are a Christian and you still don't agree 100% with his thought process? If don't agree with him then perhaps you can then understand why I do not either.

It is not an inconsistency just your misrepresentation of the facts and logical conclusions.

As usual the Christian has all the advantages. I can say Hitler has violated an objective moral law and is actually wrong. I can stop him with perfect justification.

I can say that murder is against my moral code and the moral code of my society that we have set forth in a secular fashion and take action based on that. Perfect justification.

I do but that is not the point. It is actually only wrong if God exists. If God does not the man is only acting contradictory to your opinion and is not actually wrong.

Actually the bible and your god says its okay to rape your wife. So why do you continue to think its wrong if your god says its okay? Unless....gasp...you have come to a moral conclusions on your own without the help of your bible...and it proves my point that you can have morals that are beside the bible...

Lets have another shall we? Do you think it is immoral to murder someone with stones that mowed their lawn on Sunday? Yes or no?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And you should. Your worldview contains no actual right and wrong. This allows what we see. Morality uncoupled from objective foundations is now free to be tethered anywhere the more powerful of authorities wishes it to be. This is not morality. It is moral insanity, but at least it is consistent with your position. It is insufficient to guaranty justice, in fact justice is now opinion based and means little it's self beyond what is in your fallible mind. Not to mention evolution has made you value survival not ethical goodness.

Actually my word view does allow for strict "right and wrong" situations. However it actually requires you to think for yourself with critical thinking and deep thoughts. So its not as easy as simply reading a book and following it. But it is no less moral (actually its far more moral by my view. If you only follow something because you are afraid to go to hell then you are already an amoral person).

The point is that it only can be if God exist. There exists no possibility what so ever any of these actions are actually wrong without God. At best they are only socially unfashionable.

No matter what efforts you use to obscure the problem only with God is clarity even possible on any level. There are no answers, in fact it is impossible there could be without God to your questions. The amplification of ambiguity is the mark of a failed argument.

I'm not obscuring anything. I'm being very clear and I'm trying to educate you on how this works.

We decide our morals. Based on what? Our own moral compass or empathy as well as the laws and social structures that evolve over time. You do not need god for that. What is right in some people's eyes is wrong in others. That is always true.

For example the political arena is a huge gray area of "right" and "wrong". How come Christians on both sides don't agree 100% all the time on what is right and wrong? If your god did provide the perfect moral code then they would be in agreement. They are not. This tells me that there is no higher power telling us what is right and wrong and more our own decisions.

And you need to answer my question or else we can't get any further. Is it wrong to break a rock? Is there any moral or immoral justification from the rock's point of view? Why or why not? BTW this is imperative to the discussion.