INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Agnostic75]

Science claims that life arose on its own.

Please quote where science says that. Evolution certainly does not say that.

Many physicists say that it is "plausible" that naturalism produced this universe, not that it is "probable." There is a big difference between those two claims.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There is no retaliation necessary. I was not accusing you of a fallacy. I was asking were you making an argument that I was. It is the composition fallacy when things true about a part are extrapolated to the whole and the above is one. It was my test to determine what you were saying. I have never thought about whether the universe can be tested for thermodynamic adherence. The fact that everything in it is, is good evidence (but not proof) that it is. The claims by Newton and Einstein that thermodynamics is most immutable natural law is also good evidence. If you wish to base your beliefs on the absence of any indication the universe is not subject to thermodynamics have at it but it seems terribly desperate to me.

You've not really presented any evidence that it is. All you've really done is admit that you've committed a fallacy, and quote Einstein and Newton on an issue that isn't relevant (as they never said that the Universe in it's entirety is subject to it). It's not desperate to deny something for which there is no real evidence from which we can make a conclusion.

It is more the burden of proof who is claiming the exception than the rule.

I'm not claiming anything. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claim.

The universe as a concept is certainly closed. The universe is everything. The actual universe appears to be closed or at least there is no good evidence that it isn't.

Poor logic and no evidence. Can you demonstrate that the Universe is a closed system or not?

It is the burden of the one who claims the whole is not subject to what is true of all its parts especially in the absence of any evidence or even a reliable theory demonstrating that.

Again, I didn't claim that. I simply said that we don't yet know, so we cannot form any conclusions about it. You are the one making the claim, and thus far the sum total of your evidence is "there is no good evidence that it isn't". That's not exactly scientific.

BTW where are you claiming I stated that the universe as a whole is subject to entropy. I believe it is but do not remember claiming so.

Do you know what the word "believe" means?

Science claims that life arose on its own. In absence of demonstrable proof (no matter how good the evidence, and it isn't good) is at least partially faith based.

No it isn't, since life exists and any explanation at the moment is tentative. There is no "belief" in science other than that life exists, but they do not yet know the mechanism. If evidence lead to some non-naturalistic means, then science would follow that road, but since there is absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever, science can only go where the evidence follows. At the moment, it is leading science to believe that life can arise naturally, but there is nothing conclusive yet to say it did. You don't appear to understand how science works or reaches its conclusions.

 

[Agnostic75]

I was not suggesting they had no choice. I was saying that if cosmology is used to counter God it must come from the fantasy (unreliable) side of science and contradict reliable scientific evidence. No, they are under no obligation to argue against God and most don't, but if they do they are obligated to use evidence far less solid than what exists and is consistent with God. If their doing this bothers you then tell Dawkins and the gang, to shut it. If I was an atheist I would do so, as it is embarrassing.

Ok, so you are only arguing with atheists, who are only a small group of people in the world.

If we may, let's return to the opening post, as follows:

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

Although I hope that a moral, kind God exists, I believe that a great many leading physicists, including Hawkings, Villenkin, Borde, Guth, and Penrose, would say, and have already basically said, that there is not a preponderance of scientific evidence that this universe came into being because of the actions of a God. I can quote all of those physicists if you wish.

 

[Agnostic75]

Science claims that life arose on its own.

Please quote where science says that. Evolution certainly does not say that.

Many physicists say that it is "plausible" that naturalism produced this universe, not that it is "probable." There is a big difference between those two claims.

 

[1robin]

You've not really presented any evidence that it is. All you've really done is admit that you've committed a fallacy, and quote Einstein and Newton on an issue that isn't relevant (as they never said that the Universe in its entirety is subject to it). It's not desperate to deny something for which there is no real evidence from which we can make a conclusion.

I am trying to determine how I got on the hook for this. What is it I claimed that I must validate this for?

'm not claiming anything. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claim.

What claim?

Poor logic and no evidence. Can you demonstrate that the Universe is a closed system or not?

There is no evidence it isn't. A term that means everything is kind of hard to show is not everything.

Again, I didn't claim that. I simply said that we don't yet know, so we cannot form any conclusions about it. You are the one making the claim, and thus far the sum total of your evidence is "there is no good evidence that it isn't". That's not science.

Before I embark on a meaningless trail, again why I am I on the hook for this? What claim of mine does in impact?

Do you know what the word "believe" means?

That is irrelevant and silly. What claim prior to yours on this issue sparked this line or discussion.

No it isn't, since life exists and any explanation at the moment is tentative. There is no "belief" in science other than that life exists, but they do not yet know the mechanism.

That is not true. They state life arose on its own all the time and I can give the quotes if necessary. They do steer clear if it is some official interview that they are liable for but non-the-less they have stated it many times. I am out of time and am grateful because what has gotten you all fired up today is beyond me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What claim?

Now look who's getting desperate.

There is no evidence it isn't. A term that means everything is kind of hard to show is not everything.

Again, this is nothing but poor logic. Even you can admit "there is no evidence that it isn't" is a demonstration of terrible reasoning.

That is irrelevant and silly. What claim prior to yours on this issue sparked this line or discussion.

It's not irrelevant, since to say "I believe X but I never made the claim X is true" is an contradiction, since "believe" means exactly "to hold that a given position is true". The claim made was that the Universe is finite and subject to entropy:

Post 1102:
"It is things that are dependent on time that can't be infinite. It is things that are subject to issues like entropy that can't be infinite. Actual infinites can't be traversed. Actual infinites are a necessity of an eternal universe. I never suggest that some ethereal thing can't be infinite but that what we have isn't. This universe is well evidenced as to be finite. Any other universe claimed to exist does so in science fiction, currently. Ours bears every mark of beginning."

Post 1118:
"I have never thought about whether the universe can be tested for thermodynamic adherence. The fact that everything in it is, is good evidence (but not proof) that it is. The claims by Newton and Einstein that thermodynamics is most immutable natural law is also good evidence. If you wish to base your beliefs on the absence of any indication the universe is not subject to thermodynamics have at it but it seems terribly desperate to me."

It is more the burden of proof who is claiming the exception than the rule. The universe as a concept is certainly closed. The universe is everything. The actual universe appears to be closed or at least there is no good evidence that it isn't. It is the burden of the one who claims the whole is not subject to what is true of all its parts especially in the absence of any evidence or even a reliable theory demonstrating that.

That is not true. They state life arose on its own all the time and I can give the quotes if necessary. They do steer clear if it is some official interview that they are liable for but non-the-less they have stated it many times. I am out of time and am grateful because what has gotten you all fired up today is beyond me.

Go ahead then. Please provide clear instances where science makes such a claim.

 

[Skeptisch]

Science is the field that should not make faith based assumptions about the universe yet it does, constantly.

The intellectual dishonesty has now morphed into silliness.

Thanks to SkepticThinker, ImmortalFlame :clapand others a casual reader can now get a much better and more informed picture of what science is all about. Religious people trying to substantiate their belief with science almost always make a fool of themselves.

 

[Agnostic75]

I was not suggesting they had no choice. I was saying that if cosmology is used to counter God it must come from the fantasy (unreliable) side of science and contradict reliable scientific evidence. No, they are under no obligation to argue against God and most don't, but if they do they are obligated to use evidence far less solid than what exists and is consistent with God. If their doing this bothers you then tell Dawkins and the gang, to shut it. If I was an atheist I would do so, as it is embarrassing.

Ok, so you are only arguing with atheists, who are only a small group of people in the world.

If we may, let's return to the opening post, as follows:

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

Although I hope that a moral, kind God exists, I believe that a great many leading physicists, including Hawkings, Villenkin, Borde, Guth, and Penrose, would say, and have already basically said, that there is not a preponderance of scientific evidence that this universe came into being because of the actions of a God. I can quote all of those physicists if you wish.

Science claims that life arose on its own.

Please quote where science says that. Evolution certainly does not say that.

Many physicists say that it is "plausible" that naturalism produced this universe, not that it is "probable." There is a big difference between those two claims.

As biologist and theistic evolutionist Ken Miller has said, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, and that only faith can be used to accept the existence of God. You have been misusing science to further your religious agenda.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well I appreciate the effort but I have given it up as impossible. I have started just answering what I thought most interesting in the time available.

That's a better idea.

And that proves there is a reasons why that person would not prefer to be killed, it says nothing about what that person prefers as being the arbiter of moral fact.

It also describes why that person’s life has value.

I never meant to say that an individual was the arbiter of moral fact in any collective sense. An individual is the arbiter only of his own moral truths.

I must cut to the chase on this you are circling the drain of redundancy and futility on this issue.
An atheist can prove that being murdered is not preferred by a person, you can't prove what that person prefers has anything to with right and wrong. The atheist just will not allow their views to look this bad and so they redefine morality as being equal to preference which is exactly what I have said all along. With God Murder is actually wrong because:
[/quote}

I would say that values are determined by the preferences, genetics, environment, (probably more) of a group of people trying to live cohesively as a social unit, so it would make sense that a lot of “moral facts” do seem to be universal, or close to it. It’s pretty obvious to me that this is the case given that:

a) Moral values are subjective in the sense that in many cases they depend on the situation, where sometimes a behavior is considered right and other times the same behavior is considered wrong when viewed within a different context.
b) Societies differ in their moral beliefs.
c) Individuals differ in their moral beliefs.
d) Morals change over time.

1. God has assigned human life with actual objective value. Atheism can't.

I feel I have explained why life has value, from an atheist standpoint and I feel it’s about as objective as it’s gonna get. It’s probably one of the only things I can think of that could be considered objective, and even then I can think of cases where there could be exceptions.

2. God's moral nature supersedes any other standard in the universe. There are none higher. What he declares and determines the fabric of truth in the universe. If he declares something wrong it is absolutely and objectively wrong, there exists no standard possible to overturn that. Atheism does not meet a single one of these.
3. God can and has instituted moral directives into reality. They are as real and true as up and down or 2 + 2 = 4. Atheism is derivative not determinative. It can never make anything into anything. Atheism is devoid of causal potential. Atheism only has nature as a causal element. Nature is morally neutral.

I think you’re going to run into the Euthyphro dilemma a bit with #2.

What I want to know is, why does there have to be a Christian creator of the universe in order for us to be able to use our brains to determine what our moral standards are going to be in the actual reality we find ourselves in? We are physical beings living on a physical planet where we have physical brains that are able to do all kinds of fantastic things like think and reason and learn. Why shouldn’t we employ these amazing faculties which are the only things we really have, to make moral determinations? That’s really what we’re all doing anyway.

 

[SkepticThinker]

4. I can determine what is absolutely right. You can determine what is preferred. I can't believe that you can't see the obvious and glaring deficiency with the latter.

I assert that you use the same faculties everyone else on the planet does when deriving your moral beliefs, and that that includes preference as one of the determining factors.

I do not care what fancy label you give the process by what you say is used to determine morality (never mind the facts that Hitler, Stalin etc.. used the same methods but arrived at a different conclusion and there exists no standard to declare who was right as Dawkins accurately pointed out) it all perfectly equals an opinion, and subjective opinion is absolutely devoid of any power to determine absolute right or wrong or even define the terms. Nothing is more obvious. I can't spend an eternity pointing out the sun is hot over and over. There are only a few explanations why you can't see this.

What fancy label did I give it??

I don’t recall ever saying that morals are objective.

You haven’t addressed the apparent subjective nature of moral values, which I’ve brought up several times.

1. You are too slow to even get it. I do not think this is even possible in your case. You are obviously intelligent.
2. Cognitive dissonance has claimed another willing victim. This is far more likely.
3. That you are actually right. This violates every philosophic principle I can think of unless first morality is redefined as has been attempted. Without a false redefinition this is a logical absurdity.

How about I simply don’t agree with you?

To illustrate the point that is your opinion. I have had dozens of atheist argue that evolution does in fact produce morality, I am pretty sure you have as well. That is as long as it is a good morality. Evolution appears to be a term so elastic it can be warped into whatever shape the atheist needs. I believe and am quite sure that evolution will affect and select behavior. It certainly can be used to support race theory directly and slavery indirectly. It also renders precious human life into a biological anomalies with no absolute worth of any kind.

I’ve already explained how you’re misunderstanding that in another post so I’ll leave it alone in this one.

I am curious as to why you think a biological description of life supports race theory and slavery?

This atheist thinks that as biological anomalies, we are amazing. And so are all the other biological anomalies on this planet and in this universe. I think the existence of all of it is incredible and the fact that it’s here at all makes it all so very special and precious.

See the above. Survival means lethality as much as it does defense. If you will accept the lethal aspects I could grant the passive aspects.

Perhaps an example would elucidate your point.

I have already agreed to and even added to the claims you made here but that was not the context. We have been contrasting the benevolent effects of Atheism versus (at times) Judaism, Christianity, or any religion. I said and it was perfectly appropriate that even with Christianity’s massive failures the harm produced in comparison with actions justified within secularism have been infinitely worse with no overwhelming corresponding compensation as exists within Christianity. I do not see what it is your unsatisfied about.

I disagree. The world suffered for century upon century, (i.e. most of human history) when the religious folks ran the show (And still do. How do you think it feels to be a woman in Saudi Arabia?).

Yes, I know. I must take responsibility for anything ever done by anyone claiming to believe in God (even for forms of slaverry that did not exist at the time)but any negative act no matter how appalling is never the fault of Atheism even when the most committed atheists ran the entire show. Again this is the kind of arbitrary selectivity that ruins credibility.

You don’t need to take responsibility for anything ever done by anyone claiming to believe in god, except maybe in the case of slavery wherein, you defended its practice in Biblical times. I’m not claiming you’re personally responsible for other peoples’ actions.

I don’t know about every act, but the ones you mentioned where not committed in the name of atheism, rather the tyrants you cited set up instead, situations where the state and its leaders (whom themselves were supposed to be considered divine or supreme) were to be revered and obeyed without question. Where heretics or freethinkers were carted off and disposed of. That sounds like religion to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Conditions in the Garden were far different from what we have. They did not know rebellion, sin, shame, evil until they committed the one act that he made off limits. The rest is derivative. God does not demand perfect obedience. The only thing he demands is honesty. We only need confess the truth that Christ died for us and we are sinners in need of forgiveness. How demanding is that? God REQUESTS many things (like obedience) but DEMANDS only what I claimed. I have no idea where you non-theists get your doctrines but that one is quite common and quite wrong.

I get it from reading what you've said and thinking about it.

Adam and Eve didn't know about rebellion until god rigged the game and placed a tree of knowledge of good and evil into the garden and expected people who had no knowledge of good and evil to make decisions regarding good and evil. Again, it doesn't sound to me like a being who wants to exist in perfection and harmony with its creation. It sounds like a being who wants to play games with us.

That’s not even getting into how strange it is for the torture and murder of a man/god to equate to some kind of forgiveness for all the wrong deeds committed by mankind. Where is the part where we are responsible to each other for the acts we commit against EACH OTHER? So we just imagine Jesus died for our sins and we don’t have to worry about correcting the wrong we’ve done to the actual person we’ve committed the act against?

And yes, your god does appear to demand we follow his commands. What are the consequences for us if we do not? What if I am honest and confess that I don’t believe in this god for lack of evidence?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Agreed but I would add that what we do have reliable evidence for is consistent with God. Maybe one day it won't be but for now nature indicates God so strongly that it has caused shockwaves in modern science which has become dominated by atheism.

I don't think we do have reliable evidence that is consistent with god (especially the specific god you believe in) and I don't agree that this supposed evidence has caused shockwaves in modern science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Slavery is certainly not optimal as I have exhaustively explained in detail. God never liked slavery. He allowed sevitude as a form of welfare and a necessity of the times. IN the fullness of time he set about undoing it and eventually fought against it at times when it was appropriate and teh prayers, state of faith , etc... of the people involved allowed him to. You are quite obsessed with this issue.

Then why bother encoding it in the Bible when instead god could have done the opposite, and commanded that it not be practiced because it is wrong? (That’s supposing “he” actually considered slavery wrong in the first place which really doesn’t appear to be the case, at least to me.)

Are you telling me god changed “his” mind because people prayed to “him” to end slavery??

He did not do so because slavery (servitude) was a useful concept made necessary like divorce because of our fallibility. God has never ever intended to make this world right after we rebelled. Please quit assigning him a burden for optimality he does not have. He even says in the end he will burn the entire planet to ashes to purge it of the evil and even the non optimal issues he let stand. He does this specifically to inaugurate a world completely free of slavery (that we made necessary), death, disease, or sin of any kind. Yet you call this being evil. Atheism sure forces some logical absurdities to be adopted, not to mention the arrogance of a very faulty and finite creature telling an infinite one what he ought to do. If man's abilities equaled his grasp slavery would never have existed in any form as it didn't in Eden or will not in Heaven.

Well if god really considered it wrong then “he” should have just said so. Especially considering this is supposedly what “he” did all the time all throughout the Bible. Why not just throw in a commandment against it? Talk about absurdities and faultiness. If this god thought slavery was wrong and not only didn’t say so, but set down rules as to how to treat slaves (which no matter what you say, don’t appear to be all that loving or kind), then again, it sounds like “he” is just playing games with us. Or he doesn’t actually know right from wrong or doesn’t want us to know.

I guess you would have done what we did in our infinite wisdom cast 9 million slaves adrift without work, money, or food. Many stole, hundreds of thousands followed Sherman around Georgia until he ran out of supplies, and many more died. Nice work. I am certainly glad you are not the architect of the universe. I got hung up with some more of sciences glorious track record I had to fix and ran out of time. I will try and look at the rest later. Sorry.

I would have said “all humans are equal and all humans are free” and made sure there were no situations in which anything you mentioned would have had to happen. If I’m god, I can do anything, right?

 

[jmn]

something had to start the first thing, the first science,

Educate yourself on quantum physics

and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science,.

I would say start with the origins of science. Study of nature itself.

As for a god figure existing, that's merely in your mind.

 

[1robin]

Educate yourself on quantum physics

Nothing in the little understood quantum allows anything to happen without a cause. Things do not pop into existence out of nothing. They come into existence from a pre-existent quantum flux or energy flux that it's self has a cause for. The quantum is not help with the universes cause.

As for a god figure existing, that's merely in your mind.

We went from bad science to simple guessing stated as fact. I will leave you with it.

 

[1robin]

Now look who's getting desperate.

You got me, I was desperate. I was desperate to figure out what the heck you were talking about? Actually I was desperate to leave and needed to know what I said that you were contending with.

Again, this is nothing but poor logic. Even you can admit "there is no evidence that it isn't" is a demonstration of terrible reasoning.

It would have been bad reasoning if I claimed it as fact. If all evidence that exists points in one direction and none exists that points in the other and there is no way to determine the truth then it is the one that claims that what has no evidence is true that has more explaining to do than the other. If we see a man get hit by a car and you say his injuries were caused by alien spaceships and I say the car, then who is it that should began with an explanation?

It's not irrelevant, since to say "I believe X but I never made the claim X is true" is an contradiction, since "believe" means exactly "to hold that a given position is true". The claim made was that the Universe is finite and subject to entropy:

I normally never claim anything that can't be observed or calculated is a fact but if I did nt was a type O. However I doubt it.

Post 1102:
"It is things that are dependent on time that can't be infinite. It is things that are subject to issues like entropy that can't be infinite. Actual infinites can't be traversed. Actual infinites are a necessity of an eternal universe. I never suggest that some ethereal thing can't be infinite but that what we have isn't. This universe is well evidenced as to be finite. Any other universe claimed to exist does so in science fiction, currently. Ours bears every mark of beginning."

Here we have it. I never linked a entropy limitation to the whole universe. I mentioned entropy and later I mentioned that the most universal and reliable SCIENTIFIC conclusion is that the universe is finite. I did not say the universe is finite because of entropy. I in fact believe that but do not see that I claimed it here. I will claim and have that infinite time can’t be traversed and that past events can't be eternal, or that infinite regression of causation can't be true. I in fact linked the universe to modern science not entropy. I link entropy in these types of arguments with conservation of energy concepts and the like.

Post 1118:

"I have never thought about whether the universe can be tested for thermodynamic adherence. The fact that everything in it is, is good evidence (but not proof) that it is. The claims by Newton and Einstein that thermodynamics is most immutable natural law is also good evidence. If you wish to base your beliefs on the absence of any indication the universe is not subject to thermodynamics have at it but it seems terribly desperate to me."
It is more the burden of proof who is claiming the exception than the rule. The universe as a concept is certainly closed. The universe is everything. The actual universe appears to be closed or at least there is no good evidence that it isn't. It is the burden of the one who claims the whole is not subject to what is true of all its parts especially in the absence of any evidence or even a reliable theory demonstrating that.
Go ahead then. Please provide clear instances where science makes such a claim.

Look at my post you included, I never said science makes any claim. In fact the word science does not even appear in the post that you included here at all. I honestly do not know what it is I claimed you are referring to. I will be happy to resend or defend it once I know what you’re talking about. In Newton and Einstein is it then I will supply their quotes. In not I give up.

 

[1robin]

Ok, so you are only arguing with atheists, who are only a small group of people in the world.

1. No I am not. Half the time I do not look at the status or "affiliation" of anyone I debate. I look at their claims.
2. I am currently debating all manner of groups including: Muslims, LDS, Catholics, agnostics, etc.... You are incorrect.
3. Who cares how big a group is?
4. Who cares if I was only debating atheists?
What is the point here?

If we may, let's return to the opening post, as follows:

You may go back a thousands posts if you wish but why?

Although I hope that a moral, kind God exists, I believe that a great many leading physicists, including Hawkings, Villenkin, Borde, Guth, and Penrose, would say, and have already basically said, that there is not a preponderance of scientific evidence that this universe came into being because of the actions of a God. I can quote all of those physicists if you wish.

Science ends where God begins. On a time line going backwards when the universe vanishes they are done. I could counter with the fact that the fields of science themselves were founded in large part by men of faith and that many of the greatest scientists of all time have been Christians. Probably the most renowned cosmologist in modern history (Sandage) is a believer. I can even quote hundreds of statements they made that indicate God is not only a likely hood but a virtual logical necessity but I am not sure how much good it would do. Why in the world would I think the claims of men (experts in one field) but commenting in a field they have no expertise in would be meaningful? It's like saying how many Actors think Liberalism good politics.

Please quote where science says that. Evolution certainly does not say that.

Here is one of countless statements, chosen because it condemns it's self.
Dr. Harold C. Urey, Nobel Prize-holding chemist of the University of California at La Jolla, explained the modern outlook on this question by noting that "all of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.
And yet, he added, "We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great it is hard for us to imagine that it did."
Or how about even a poem from Darwin's grandfather:
Dr Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), wrote in his scientific poem The Temple of Nature (1802), much appreciated at the time but not much later:
"Hence without parents, by spontaneous birth,
Rise the first specks of animated earth."
and
"Organic life beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves;"

Many physicists say that it is "plausible" that naturalism produced this universe, not that it is "probable." There is a big difference between those two claims.

Of course most do. They are quite aware of the folly of claiming specifics that come back to bite them. However most "believe it" and some of the less careless claim it.

As biologist and theistic evolutionist Ken Miller has said, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, and that only faith can be used to accept the existence of God. You have been misusing science to further your religious agenda.

I agree that science can't prove it one way or another which makes your offer to provide scientific quotes quite inconsistent but science can discover evidence that makes the case for God more likely or less so. All true science is at the very least consistent with God. The only part that is used to contend with God is in the fantasy theoretical parts of science and requires more faith than the Bible.

 

[1robin]

That's a better idea.

Great but I can't remember what it was now.

It also describes why that person’s life has value.

That is not objective value and it says nothing about why taking that value away is wrong. It also says nothing about why I would not even want to take a value only you value away. I am quite certain you understand what I am saying by now but will not allow yourself to admit it.

I never meant to say that an individual was the arbiter of moral fact in any collective sense. An individual is the arbiter only of his own moral truths.

An individual can only actually be arbiter of preference and nevr of objective morality.

I would say that values are determined by the preferences, genetics, environment, (probably more) of a group of people trying to live cohesively as a social unit, so it would make sense that a lot of “moral facts” do seem to be universal, or close to it. It’s pretty obvious to me that this is the case given that:

This might explain why X is desirable. It says nothing about whether X is wrong or right. I have always granted this for atheism so we are still circling the same drain.

a) Moral values are subjective in the sense that in many cases they depend on the situation, where sometimes a behavior is considered right and other times the same behavior is considered wrong when viewed within a different context.
b) Societies differ in their moral beliefs.
c) Individuals differ in their moral beliefs.
d) Morals change over time.

I know what you are saying and if the Bible said do not kill that would be true but it says to not murder. Murder is never right. Opinions change over time not morals (in fact that shows why we are not a good source for what is right or wrong). It is wrong to kill a baby even if our modern society is so sick that to do so one day before birth is a sacred right and one day after it is murder. That is moral insanity and exactly what atheism results in in thousands of instances. Nietzsche said (I like Nietzsche because he knew what the stakes were) that since secular thinkers killed God in the 1800's that the 19th century would be the bloodiest on record and that a universal madness would reign. He was an atheistic prophet it seems because the 19th century saw more blood than the previous 18 put together and not only is secularism spreading moral insanity but Nietzsche went quite mad himself. However this is not the real problem. The problem is the pride, ignorance, or blindness that prevents secular folks from recognizing or admitting so obvious a mistake and correcting it so they do what the Bible says was symptomatic of the last days. They have had to declare wrong (abortion, homosexuality, and liberalism) to now be right and right (traditional morality, modesty, and the intolerance or moral erosion) to be wrong to make their ideals valid. That is the true evil of modern society and is the worst sin in the Bible PRIDE.

I feel I have explained why life has value, from an atheist standpoint and I feel it’s about as objective as it’s gonna get. It’s probably one of the only things I can think of that could be considered objective, and even then I can think of cases where there could be exceptions.

You have shown why someone may value a life. That does nothing to make the taking of that life wrong. It is also the greatest example of a subjective concept imaginable. If value determines fault what if no one (even the victim) values the life taken.

I think you’re going to run into the Euthyphro dilemma a bit with #2.

Is that the divine command theory. If so it is not a problem but I loose track of secular fallacies and dilemma's that aren't actually either.

What I want to know is, why does there have to be a Christian creator of the universe in order for us to be able to use our brains to determine what our moral standards are going to be in the actual reality we find ourselves in?

Because it requires a transcendent standard to validate our preferences as actual truths. Even paganistic, secular, etc empires have recognized the difference between actions against contrived ethics and against "natural" law.

We are physical beings living on a physical planet where we have physical brains that are able to do all kinds of fantastic things like think and reason and learn. Why shouldn’t we employ these amazing faculties which are the only things we really have, to make moral determinations? That’s really what we’re all doing anyway.

Tell me this. If the Nazi's would have won WW2 and killed off all opposition would the Holocaust be moral? They used the exact methods you did to determine a different but equally valid conclusion. You are confusing ontology with epistemology. We use our brains to perceive a moral dimension that only exists if God does. The same way we do with math. You can say 2 + 2 = 5 but it is no more valid than saying killing an unborn is ok. You are using our brains to determine a moral dimension that does not exist without him and cannot create moral truth (only declare it).

 

[jmn]

. We went from bad science to simple guessing stated as fact. I will leave you with it.

First of all the quantum level is the best science we have right now, and i do subscribe to chaos theory. As for reason cause, absolutely nobody knows. You just cant insert a god figure for reason cause.

 

[1robin]

I assert that you use the same faculties everyone else on the planet does when deriving your moral beliefs, and that that includes preference as one of the determining factors.

Well who's opinion is to be used in secularville....Hitler's, Stalin’s, Mother Theresa's, Muhammad's or Mao's and why? Your system either makes morality a flavor of the month or might makes right. My beliefs were against my wishes at least when adopted. I wish many things about God were different. Preference has little to do with what I believe.

What fancy label did I give it??

No matter what terms or words are used to establish morality without God they equal opinion.

I don’t recall ever saying that morals are objective.

You do not have to that is what you believe. Virtually everyone even secular or Pagan empires recognizes an objective moral dimension. It is a virtual instinct only possibly absent in the very insane.

You haven’t addressed the apparent subjective nature of moral values, which I’ve brought up several times.

I deny them in general. The Romans being extremely logical and systematic categorized morality as objective and ethics as subjective and so does everyone else (admitted or not). Do you think the torture of a new born right even if everyone else did?

How about I simply don’t agree with you?

I have gathered that much.

I’ve already explained how you’re misunderstanding that in another post so I’ll leave it alone in this one.

Very well.

I am curious as to why you think a biological description of life supports race theory and slavery?

It allows and even validates a superiority of race. It was in fact a version of evolution (not an invalid one) that Hitler excused his race claims by. The title of Darwin’s book would be enough all alone.

This atheist thinks that as biological anomalies, we are amazing. And so are all the other biological anomalies on this planet and in this universe. I think the existence of all of it is incredible and the fact that it’s here at all makes it all so very special and precious.

It is not important what an atheist thinks. It is important what is demonstrably logical or reliable. I can think Christians are smarter than any other group. I can't demonstrate it. (I do not think). However special you think biology is it only becomes more "special" with God. There is only a net gain in "specialness" given God and a loss without him.

Perhaps an example would elucidate your point.

Survival would make execution of any competitors that did not aid my tribes survival a plus. If you accept these negative aspects of survival governed ethics I can grant he "good" aspects.

I disagree. The world suffered for century upon century, (i.e. most of human history) when the religious folks ran the show (And still do. How do you think it feels to be a woman in Saudi Arabia?).

I never said it did not, and I do not have to take responsibility for false religions because I believe in the actual God. I said almost all ethical statistics have gotten worse corresponding exactly to the rise in modern secularism. That is a fact so obvious and so damning that secularists have had to change what is actually right and wrong to defend it. Happily for them it is very easy given no God.

You don’t need to take responsibility for anything ever done by anyone claiming to believe in god, except maybe in the case of slavery wherein, you defended its practice in Biblical times. I’m not claiming you’re personally responsible for other peoples’ actions.

Very well but my claims are not responsible either.

I don’t know about every act, but the ones you mentioned where not committed in the name of atheism, rather the tyrants you cited set up instead, situations where the state and its leaders (whom themselves were supposed to be considered divine or supreme) were to be revered and obeyed without question. Where heretics or freethinkers were carted off and disposed of. That sounds like religion to me.

Please take care to understand this. My claims are this.
1. The atheists elimination of God allows for a less substantial valuation for Human life and it is therefore much less diabolical to kill. Be honest here. Which is more of a prohibition to murder?
a. Atheism- life is valuable to a person and their associates but has no absolute worth. Killing is inconvenient for them but carry’s no objective foul or eternal consequence.
b. Theism - Human life has absolute worth to the architect of the universe. We are all observed by him and are eternally accountable to him. To take life unjustly is objectively wrong and carry’s eternal consequences.
2. Even actions not directly attributable to atheism are derived from facets of it .
3. Stalin and many other atheistic Tyrants persecuted religious folks directly and for atheistic reasons alone.
There are many other aspects to this but I am lazy and this is quite enough.