INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[lewisnotmiller]

Have you read Atheist Christian literature? Thomas Altizer is a good place to start.

Interesting that he thinks that God is dead and Christianity can only be saved through Buddhism.

I haven't read his stuff, but am broadly aware of the concepts he holds. It's an interesting tweak on atheism to suggest that it only holds that there are CURRENTLY no Gods. Good point though, some people would class themselves as Atheist Christians, I suppose.

I think the broad thrust of what I said holds true though. Just that the example I used could be technically challenged.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I haven't read his stuff, but am broadly aware of the concepts he holds. It's an interesting tweak on atheism to suggest that it only holds that there are CURRENTLY no Gods. Good point though, some people would class themselves as Atheist Christians, I suppose.

I think the broad thrust of what I said holds true though. Just that the example I used could be technically challenged.

Atheist Christianity is a scholarly movement. It's a minority, but it's still alive. Good reading I think.

 

[camanintx]

The example you want is e, not pi.

Either example works since both π and e are mathematical constants which could not have been anything other than what they are.

I do not understand the reasoning you used. In this context there are two primary ways things are determined.
1. One natural and logical necessity.
2. Choice.
My claim was there exists no known natural reason that many of the constants are what they are. There for choice in a debate with a theist is the other option. If choice, then any choice was available unless purpose imposes its self. So we have a purpose and a design with characteristics that are consistent with than purpose. No natural explanation and no reason to think choice could not have produce any range of factors but didn't. Now we have will. BTW the fact that there are maybe a dozen or more of these the dependant probability soon gets astroniomical. All must be exactly as they are to get a structured universe and therefore life of anytype.

Can you give even one example of a physical law that allows for choice? What makes you think that the formation of these laws would be any less deterministic? Without any understanding of how natural laws came into existence, any claims about their variability is pure speculation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thats absurd of course it depends on personal preference. If we did not exist it cease to exist as well. Something is getting lost in translation here. The fact that we value life is an objective fact. The idea that our life actually has value is about the most subjective concept possible. The fact remains no matter what we value it is irrelevant to any actual value it has. I can believe my dollar bill to be worth ten but it isn't. Actually our money is all but worthless but that is another issue. Human value life the same way a certain island nation values currency. They carved several ton stone blocks out and gave them values. Are they actually worth anything objectively?

The fact that we value life is an objective fact. So it is an objective value. We also value human well-being (and animal well-being to a certain extent) which is one of the reasons we even have morality in the first place.

A dollar bill is worth a dollar because we say it is. Actually, it is worth whatever it costs to print it, if we’re going to get technical about it.

Are you talking about the Easter Island statues? Why do you think the people who carved them thought they had value in the sense that we’re talking about?

If God killed every form on life in existence on what basis would you declare it wrong? It is a non-sensical statement.

What?

I couldn’t declare it anything because I wouldn’t be here to do so.

That does not represent any dilemma the God I believe is has. What is right is determined by what is consistent with God's nature. It is a mistake to think of God sitting around inventing what is good. He is what is good. Even if it was a dilemma who cares? We are perfectly accountable to God whether he invented morals or is morality. It makes little difference to us in any practical way.

This in an example of people thinking a concept into meaninglessness. It is much ado about nothing even if it was true.

Sure it does and it is a not meaningless at all. “Is god good?” is the question. You say that god is good and therefore he is the author of moral truths. But if the concepts of good and bad exist outside of god (which is pretty much the basis of your argument against why humans cannot determine objective truths) then god could do a bad thing or a good thing. God could do a bad thing and claim it is a good thing, but it wouldn’t make it good just because god did it.

And to take it even further, don’t you ever wonder if your god wonders where “he” came from?

There is no possible way that morality could be anything other than this if God did not exist. It is an absolute and is obvious in every way. Name one moral precept that is not a preference without God.

I may prefer to take other peoples’ things, for example, but other people don’t prefer I take their things. It is not subject to mere personal whim.

Prohibition against ending a healthy human life is a moral precept that can exist without your god (or any god).

Let me illustrate this way. Prove the Nazi's were wrong. They used the exact mechanism and methods you suggest yet arrived at a different conclusion. In your view there is no method of deciding who is right, even defining what right is exactly, or justifying whatever right is preferred to be.

They were not concerned about human well-being, which is where morality starts. They were concerned with creating a pure Aryan race by torturing and killing people they considered to lack Aryan blood.

Funny how the rest of the world was able to determine that what the Nazis were doing was wrong and decided to put an end to it. How did we manage to do that, if what you say is true?

I do not think you got the point or the entire concept here. You claim we all sit around and ponder what is good. Then we record our conclusions as law. What if the majority were Nazi's and believed the holocaust good. I thought I made that apparent by stating that they had killed off all who disagree. You simply ignored that. If everyone on Earth thought killing a pet dog was no worse than killing a fly would it therefore not be?

What I claim is that morality is obviously the product of a combination of factors including (But not limited to) evolution, environment, genetics, reason, and learning, which we use in an attempt to maintain social cohesion and enhance survivability. We are able to evaluate the consequences of our actions with respect to specific goals, like the well-being of our fellow creatures, or the flourishing of human society, for example. Moral systems are are data-driven, which is why they can depend on a situation and why they are subject to change, especially over time. In other words, we learn what works and what doesn't, act accordingly, or add to it based on evidence. This would explain why we find versions of morality everywhere within the animal kingdom and it also explains why moral values have changed over time. If you're worried that this is all subject to preference and opinion, it should be pointed out the the Christian system of obedience to authority is based on the preferences and opinions of the god you believe in. You just happen to think those opinions and preferences are more valid than those of the people who actually inhabit the reality in which we live.

I didn’t ignore the part where you claimed they killed off all opposition. I addressed it. I simply don’t think it would result in a world where humans didn’t think human life had value. Even the Nazis thought the lives of the people who were a part of the Aryan race had value. And they did, in fact, manage to kill off 6 million people who stood in opposition to them and yet they still couldn’t convince the world that what they were doing was right.

God is the one concept that can know if genocide is justified. Your side will simultaneously claim that not wiping out the Nazis is proof God is evil and wiping out a generation worse than them is also proof he is evil even when he died to save us all. Incoherence like that is supposed to be a indication your philosophy is untenable. GK Chesterton said that was why he lost faith in atheism; it is completely self-refuting and self-contradictory. When you are known worldwide as he was as "the apostle of common sense" then you may declare him wrong with credibility. Continued below:

Of course! Anything can be justified by your belief in your god! Slavery, genocide, whatever! If god says it’s good then it’s good. So if god decided tomorrow that killing babies was good then it would be so. And we’d all just have to accept it whether we agreed or not.

And if your god is so concerned with morals, right and wrong actions and good and evil, then why is entrance to heaven dependent on belief rather than on our moral behavior? We should expect to find it the other way around, if what you're saying bears any truth.

Good for GK Chesterton. I disagree. I can refute his argument whenever I please, regardless of what label you give him. Maybe you could provide a source for your above quotation. I can’t refute something if I don’t know what the guy is talking about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It may be good. If God killed all the Nazis and saved 50 million or anyone that voted for abortion rights and saved 1 billion on what scale could he be indicted? There is in fact no scale at all without God. Your side gives medals (mine to) to people who kill many to save others, why is it wrong when God does it, or wrong when he does not, or wrong when he does anything what so ever? Because preference determines your reality.

How are you determining that what god does is good or bad in the first place? And how are you determining that god is good in the first place? Preference appears to determine your reality as well. You use your own mind to determine what characteristics god has, and declare them to be good. You use your own mind to determine what parts of the Bible to follow and which to discard. You use your own mind to determine how to interpret the Bible and declare it to be right.

If god didn’t save a bunch of children who died during a tornado, is that good or bad? And how would you even go about making such a determination?

And on a side note, why does the god of the Bible enlist human beings to carry out these genocides that he determines to be necessary? How can your god tell humans not to murder then turn around and tell them to murder?

Let's say that did happen, by what standard they can be condemned if God ordered it. If God did not exists what standard is even available to attempt it. It's a self-defeating proposition. My example at least was theoretically conceivable. In fact there is an example like this (the flood). On what basis can you condemn the God that did that? What basis is even potentially available to attempt it? Not to mention the issue was never what would people believe, it was what is right.

By the standard that human life has value. By the standard that if we end all human life we cease to exist.
This is why cannibalism isn’t widely practiced - because societies that practice it tend to die out.

None of this answers the question.

I would not contend me on military history. Several things make the decision justifiable.
1. The estimated casualties were over 500,000 on our side alone for a conventional assault. Far worse for Japan.
2. We only had enough fissionable material for two Bombs. The effect had to be a maximum.
I in fact dare you to contend the justification for these actions. It was not optimal, it was justified.

Thanks for making my point for me. J

That is absolutely impossible. Natural law never has nor ever will indicate what should be. Atoms do not care. This is also a mind brain issue.

It’s not impossible at all, and it’s quite obvious to me and to the people that study human history, sociology, and anthropology that this is how human beings and other animals have developed morality over the course of our existence. We are made of atoms, and we care.

You want us to follow the moral teachings of a Bronze Age society that knew very little about the world around them and whose views represents one of humankind's first attempts at moral reasoning. And you just want to stop there. I find that puzzling and backwards.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is an absolute fact that secularism has compromised general morality and that has affected Christians. Once again you have ontology and epistemological confusion. Again you are having optimality confusion. To say I have Christian values does not say that I am either perfect or that I always do what I believe. This was simply a nonstarter, and the fact that abortion rates are higher in secular circles proves without doubt my claim is correct. As to what they are doing, the answer is screwing up.

It is not an absolute fact. It’s also an assumption that morality stems from Christianity or religiosity.

If it doesn’t follow that being a Christian means you’re going to follow Christian principles, then your argument that if only we all practiced Christianity the world would be a more moral place, doesn’t work. Not only that, but which particular brand of Christianity are we talking about here? Various sects have different moral precepts. For example, some accept homosexuality, while others think it's an abomination.

Abortion rates are not higher in secular circles, so again, your argument doesn’t work.

That was not apologetic that was a personal observation. It probably could have been stated better but the general sentiment is valid. The exclusion of God is a universal loss in hope, not that some transient, temporal, relatively insignificant hope can't be maintained.

Nonsense. Christian apologists state this crap all the time. It appears to be some lame attempt at superiority.

 

[jmn]

people who will testify they have experienced a risen Christ.

Propagation of image representation, or nerve impulses can lead to cognitive bias, which will lead to irrationality, and overlooked truth.:sorry1:

 

[1robin]

Can you give even one example of a physical law that allows for choice?

I do not remember making a claim that demands this proof. However natural law reflects choice. The fact it exists at all is not a necessity. It can't even theoretically be a natural necessity because nature did not exist to demand it to exist.

What makes you think that the formation of these laws would be any less deterministic?

I think you misunderstood my argument. Things take place for only two possible reasons.
1. Natural necessity.
2. Choice.
Natural necessity can't account for many constants in nature nor nature itself.
All that is left is choice. It’s a reductionist argument.

Without any understanding of how natural laws came into existence, any claims about their variability is pure speculation.

It is funny how we can have the greatest confidence in anything as long as it makes God less probable. The minute it leans in God favor then the ultra-skeptical antennas emerge. I only wish a consistent standard would be adhered to. Of course my claims are speculative but are consistent with more of the data than are counter explanations. In fact counter explanations are either devoid or in spite of the data in almost all cases. You do not support some kind of absolute determinism do you? That’s a debate ender. Kind of a truth ender as well.

 

[1robin]

The fact that we value life is an objective fact. So it is an objective value. We also value human well-being (and animal well-being to a certain extent) which is one of the reasons we even have morality in the first place.

Argghhh!!!! There is nothing about the fact that we value anything that gives anything objective value. A good test for the objectiveness of a concept in this context is "would it still be true if no one believed it?" If we value something and preserve it that does not give it actual value or make it's preservation actually moral. It is convenience and preference alone that we have without God. Not right and wrong. Evolution’s equations spit out results and one is just as good or right as any other.

A dollar bill is worth a dollar because we say it is. Actually, it is worth whatever it costs to print it, if we’re going to get technical about it.

It actually went from being worth about $1.17 to about a quarter under Roosevelt. A dollar's worth has no connection to actual value. As you say a dollar is worth whatever we say and is not natural fact. Nor is right and wrong a natural fact of nature. Only with God are right and wrong natural facts. I have just about given up hope you can understand this or are willing to.

Are you talking about the Easter Island statues? Why do you think the people who carved them thought they had value in the sense that we’re talking about?

No, I am talking about big coral rings found on the ocean floor. (Forgot who carved them). I do not think they are equivalent to what I am talking, they are equivalent to what you are talking about, that is my point. The value of a lump of coal and the law against murder are based on the exact same thing without God. Opinion.

What?
I couldn’t declare it anything because I wouldn’t be here to do so.

Now that is copping out. I am talking about concepts. You can evaluate a concept without the concept occurring can you not.

Sure it does and it is a not meaningless at all. “Is god good?” is the question. You say that god is good and therefore he is the author of moral truths.

There exists no standard by which to declare God not good or more accurately "not right". It is a meaningless question.

But if the concepts of good and bad exist outside of god (which is pretty much the basis of your argument against why humans cannot determine objective truths)

No, they exist as a part of God's nature. Morals are a product of his nature not something he invented.

The same moral nature that exists then god could do a bad thing or a good thing. God could do a bad thing and claim it is a good thing, but it wouldn’t make it good just because god did it.

Again if God killed everyone on Earth besides you on what basis could you declare it wrong? You are actually arguing that a transcendent all-knowing moral agent is not a basis for morality but a fallible, limited, and transient biological anomaly is. That is doomed to destroy its self.

And to take it even further, don’t you ever wonder if your god wonders where “he” came from?

I have enough troubles figuring out what I need to know.

I may prefer to take other peoples’ things, for example, but other people don’t prefer I take their things. It is not subject to mere personal whim.

Yes it is. In war one group decides it is moral to take their enemies things and the other decides the same is immoral. Both can't be right and both are derived from he same process you are. Both are convenience and preference based and neither one makes it's self a natural moral fact.

Prohibition against ending a healthy human life is a moral precept that can exist without your god (or any god).

Of course but it is one that can never have an absolute justification without a God.

They were not concerned about human well-being, which is where morality starts. They were concerned with creating a pure Aryan race by torturing and killing people they considered to lack Aryan blood.

Prove that human wellbeing is the true basis for morality. You are assuming it is and then declaring anyone who does not agree wrong based on nothing. Why is not cow wellbeing the proper basis? There are only so many options you declare human wellbeing the basis because:
1. It is convenient and selfish.
2. It based on might makes right.
3. It is based on intelligence equals worth.
Without God this is pure specieism and no less unjustifiable than what the Nazi's did.

Funny how the rest of the world was able to determine that what the Nazis were doing was wrong and decided to put an end to it. How did we manage to do that, if what you say is true?

Because of exactly what I have claimed. Humanity can access a factual moral realm that it can't justify or ground without God. For the 100th time this is epistemology not ontology.

What I claim is that morality is obviously the product of a combination of factors including (But not limited to) evolution, environment, genetics, reason, and learning, which we use in an attempt to maintain social cohesion and enhance survivability. We are able to evaluate the consequences of our actions with respect to specific goals, like the well-being of our fellow creatures, or the flourishing of human society, for example. Moral systems are data-driven, which is why they can depend on a situation and why they are subject to change, especially over time. In other words, we learn what works and what doesn't, act accordingly, or add to it based on evidence. This would explain why we find versions of morality everywhere within the animal kingdom and it also explains why moral values have changed over time. If you're worried that this is all subject to preference and opinion, it should be pointed out the the Christian system of obedience to authority is based on the preferences and opinions of the god you believe in. You just happen to think those opinions and preferences are more valid than those of the people who actually inhabit the reality in which we live.

If evolution is spitting out answers to an equation then how is it determinative of what should be instead of only what is. That same equation generated over-predation by Jackals, the eating of their young by lions, or the torture of a mouse by a cat. It also means that when tribe a wipes out every member that does not contribute to tribe A's survival and the enslavement of those that do simple what the equation spit out and not judge able by other anomalies the equation spit out. BTW many of humanities greatest moral actions are thought great because they defy survival, and evolution does not explain or promote fairness, equality, or honor. Evolution is not data dependent it is driven by self-preservation. No monkeys ever built a library and no lizards ever goggled anything.

I didn’t ignore the part where you claimed they killed off all opposition. I addressed it. I simply don’t think it would result in a world where humans didn’t think human life had value. Even the Nazis thought the lives of the people who were a part of the Aryan race had value. And they did, in fact, manage to kill off 6 million people who stood in opposition to them and yet they still couldn’t convince the world that what they were doing was right.

Whether it is possible is not the issue. BTW what was true of Nazism could very easily be true of humanity under the conditions I listed. Thousands of people killing off millions of others is not an isolated condition. The point was and is theoretical not observational and is not even dependent on likelihood or possibility regardless. Continued below.

 

[1robin]

Of course! Anything can be justified by your belief in your god! Slavery, genocide, whatever! If god says it’s good then it’s good. So if god decided tomorrow that killing babies was good then it would be so. And we’d all just have to accept it whether we agreed or not.

That is just emotional recationism. If I wanted to enslave someone I could not find a single verse to justify it. I could in fact find many that justify killing to stop it. However racism and evolution are inseparable and nothing in evolution could argue against slavery even if it existed, as a moral wrong.

And if your god is so concerned with morals, right and wrong actions and good and evil, then why is entrance to heaven dependent on belief rather than on our moral behavior?

This is two separate issues. Behavior has the most dire temporal penalty possible in the Bible. As far as salvation goes no man can even theoretically earn heaven and so how could moral merit be a factor. i used to be troubled by the fact that heaven is faith based until I tried to cobble together a merit based system. It is absolutely impossible.

We should expect to find it the other way around, if what you're saying bears any truth.

You have apparently spent little time considering a merit based salvation system. I spent three years in study on that one issue and can elaborate as much as needed. I can also include what I believe were three miracles that helped settle the matter for me if you wish. Any study at all quickly reveals the irrationality of merit based systems concerning heaven.

Good for GK Chesterton. I disagree. I can refute his argument whenever I please, regardless of what label you give him.

I never gave him any label. Scholarship consensus did. If you can contend him you would be the first. Clarence Darrow sure couldn't. There is a mock theatrical debate of this based on the transcripts I would recommend.

Maybe you could provide a source for your above quotation. I can’t refute something if I don’t know what the guy is talking about.

Very well, Keep in mind that he argues by wit and universally acknowledged as a satirical master wordsmith.


The paradoxes of Christianity

Because the truth of Christianity is a complex truth, it is hard to argue directly for it. The case for it is cumulative, and this makes it hard to know where to begin. C. says that the anti-Christian literature of his day provided the clue as to how to begin (see p. 91).
​

Examples:

• a. Christianity is too pessimistic: spreads gloom, keeps people from taking joy in nature, in their bodies, in their own autonomy, etc.
  BUT Christianity is also too optimistic: consists in wishful thinking with its doctrines of Providence and life after death.
  • "This puzzled me; the charges seemed inconsistent. Christianity could not at once be the black mask on a white world, and also the white mask on a black world. The state of the Christian could not be at once so comfortable that he was a coward to cling to it, and so uncomfortable that he was a fool to stand it" (p. 92).
  b. Christianity makes one too timid: emphasis on virtues like kindness, non-violence, monkishness
  BUT Christianity also makes one too warlike: crusades, mother of wars.
  • "The Gospel paradox about the other cheek, the fact that priests never fought, a hundred things made plausible the accusation that Christianity was an attempt to make a man too like a sheep ... [But] I turned the next page in my agnostic manual, and my brain turned upside down. Now I found that I was to hate Christianity not for fighting too little, but for fighting too much" (p. 93).
  c. Christianity is just one among other religions; as a creed it divides people but as a moral code it is universal
  BUT Christianity preaches a benighted and outmoded morality.
  • "I was thoroughly annoyed with Christianity for suggesting (as I supposed) that whole ages and empires of men had utterly escaped this light of justice and reason. But then I found an astonishing thing. I found that the very people who said that mankind was one church from Plato to Emerson were the very people who said that morality had changed altogether, and that what was right in one age was wrong in another. If I asked, say, for an altar, I was told that we needed none, for men our brothers gave us clear oracles and one creed in their universal customs and ideas. But if I mildly pointed out that one of men's universal customs was to have an altar, then my agnostic teachers turned clean round and told me that men had always been in darkness and the superstition of savages. I found it was their daily taunt against Christianity that it was the light of one people and had left all others to die in the dark. But I also found that it was their special boast for themselves that science and progress were the discovery of one people, and that all other peoples had died in the dark" (p. 94).
  d. Christianity attacks the family by dragging women to the cloister
  BUT Christianity forces marriage and the family upon us.
  
  e. Christianity shows contempt for women's intellect
  BUT Christianity is such that in Europe "only women" follow it.
  
  f. Christianity is reproachable because of its pomp and ritualism
  BUT Christianity is reproachable because of its sackcloth and dried peas.
  
  g. Christianity restrains sexuality too much
  BUT Christianity does not restrain sexuality enough.
  
  h. Christianity is primly respectable
  BUT Christianity is religiously extravagant.
  
  i. Christianity is too disunified
  BUT Christianity is too monolithic.

C's conclusion at that point was not that Christianity is true, but simply that it must be very odd to be wrong in all these ways at once. There are just two possibilities: either Christianity is a very odd shape or the critics themselves are odd in many opposed ways. (p. 97).
Chesterton's Orthodoxy
​

 

[camanintx]

I think you misunderstood my argument. Things take place for only two possible reasons.
1. Natural necessity.
2. Choice.
Natural necessity can't account for many constants in nature nor nature itself.
All that is left is choice. It’s a reductionist argument.

So there is no room for chance in your argument? Is God a natural necessity or a choice?

 

[1robin]

So there is no room for chance in your argument? Is God a natural necessity or a choice?

Chance does not exist. You can't go get a handful of chance. Chaos theory rendered chance moot long ago. Everything is determined or chosen. Chance is simply a term used to mean that the complex arrangement of factors that lead to a result is unquantifiable. Casinos will be the first to tell you that chance does not exist. Every spin of a roulette wheel determines the result. I did a study on this in probability. If you watch a "beating Vegas" episode you will see what I mean. Friction coefficients, physical bias, and forces determine the result the instant they are applied by choice and natural necessity. My PhD boss is an information theory expert that specializes in differential Boolean calculus and he said a random number generator is a theoretical impossibility. God is a brute fact of reality (a necessary being). BTW God is the one thing that even theoretically exists outside of the natural and so is not bound by natural rules or tendencies.

 

[1robin]

It is not an absolute fact. It’s also an assumption that morality stems from Christianity or religiosity.

You are partly right on both claims so let me clarify. It is an absolute fact that the rise in secularism in the US has corresponded with a general decline in moral data. I do not claim that no one can be moral without God. I claim that morality has no objective foundation without God even theoretically possible which is why so many atheistic scholars claim morality is an illusion.

If it doesn’t follow that being a Christian means you’re going to follow Christian principles, then your argument that if only we all practiced Christianity the world would be a more moral place, doesn’t work.

I was not debating what Christians do but what Christianity claims. For example if only the sanctity of all life made abortion illegal that would have saved a billion lives. If I granted (irrationally) that every case of servitude in the Bible was chattel slavery, that women can't vote, that gays can't marry, and all the people killed in the crusades, the inquisition, and the conquests combined would be a small price. Not that Christianity or God is actually on the hook for any of that.

Not only that, but which particular brand of Christianity are we talking about here? Various sects have different moral precepts. For example, some accept homosexuality, while others think it's an abomination.

God claimed it an abomination, I think what a person claims is irrelevant but you are discussing application and I wasn't. I argue that:
1. God is the only actual basis for moral truth.
2. That Christianity is the best moral plan for an individual’s life.
3. Christianity was never intended to be a governmental institution but a personal one.

Abortion rates are not higher in secular circles, so again, your argument doesn’t work.

They absolutely are as a percentage of population. Do you still not get this? Besides the fact that a Christian acting against a Christian principle has nothing to do with the Bible or God.

Nonsense. Christian apologists state this crap all the time. It appears to be some lame attempt at superiority.

That may be but your complaint was about my motivation and was wrong. I was motivated by a common observation and (head shaking) confusion produced by the dismissal of any ultimate hope based on insufficient evidence for it and what appears to me to be primarily preference based. Let me this because unlike Pascal's wager I think it valid.

1. Let's take the verse:

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Now history can never confirm nor deny this absolutely (however it has been spiritually confirmed by millions, this is evidence that no atheist can begin to counter but still not objective). It would make all the sense in the world to leave the option that it is true open if possible. That is totally separate from committing your life to him but logical none the less. You can never confirm no God exists and I can never prove he does. However allowing the evidence to be viewed in the light of hope is logical. Looking at it with a hopeless bias makes no sense. Again this is a different issue than actual faith. In that context the only potential loss is found in your viewpoint. Pascal carried it way beyond that point and was not “right” in my context. Most non-theists appear to me to have a potentially devestating assumption in search of evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As Sir Lancelot said "that's easy" The primary purpose of the Bible is to lead a human to faith in God. He never intended to fix this world although he does at times stop us from destroying it and ourselves and other events he chooses.

How do you know what god intends or doesn’t intend to do?

Why stop us from destroying the world when he doesn’t intend to fix it in the first place? And doesn’t that imply that he really doesn’t care about this world he’s put us in?

Actually he did do so but in a much more comprehensive way.

Apparently he did it in the most obscure way possible – by condoning it.

The Bible teaches that he gave us all a moral conscience. However it is only brought fully on line when we are reconciled to him, and only fully "tuned" by spiritual faith and effort. That actually explains countless moral dilemmas perfectly.

Well, that’s a convenient excuse, isn’t it.

We all have a moral conscience, but we can only fully use it if we believe in your god.

I already explained this and it bore no resemblance to what is claimed here.

I found your explanation lacking.

He did not mess up, however he promised to fix it at some point. With your views we have no explanation, no provision, and no ultimate resolution.

In my view, we fix what we think is wrong with the world ourselves because we are the only ones around to do so.

This is so diametrically opposed to secular history that I will leave reality to make my point. In fact many on your side claim morality is an illusion and responsibility a farce and given your views they are right.

I don’t know who you’re talking about, but so what? I disagree with them. Remember how I told you that all atheists don’t think alike and there’s no reason to expect they should since atheism isn’t a world view? Well, there you have it.

In any system where fallible and rebellious humans are involved this is the result. Like Christ he gave us a pure revelation and allowed us to do with it as we will. Is it any wonder that the Romans killed Christ, others perverted the Gospel, and secularists attempt to obscure even its most benevolent effects and legacies? No subject on Earth no matter how clear is ever agreed on by everyone. Even if you have a point about the commentary the core of Christianity is about as clear as possible.

Maybe your god should have just been more clear in the first place, given that he should already know that we’re fallible, rebellious and stupid.

Maybe you’ve perverted the gospels, and the Inquisitors were the right ones. There’s no real way to know.

My statement was so unusually well written and so devoid of any thing these questions are based on I will post it again.
How did he do what?
Evil is a label or quality not a thing. If a car is good then a car that is ran into a nitroglycerin factory by a drunk would be bad or "evil". We changed good into evil by misuse. God gave the poppy plant, you can make morphine and use it for good things or you can make heroine and use it for evil.

How does that answer my question?

 

[1robin]

How do you know what god intends or doesn’t intend to do?

Do you actually not know what I meant? Let me restate because of meaningless technical complaints. That is what Biblical doctrine illustrates and therefore what I believe God intends.

Why stop us from destroying the world when he doesn’t intend to fix it in the first place?

He does intend to fix it but not before it has served its purpose and our rebellion has run it's course.

And doesn’t that imply that he really doesn’t care about this world he’s put us in?

If I build a house and allow in tenants that because of some legal loop hole can destroy my house but I can't evict them. Does it make sense I would continually fix it up? No I would make sure it's frame remains intact until the tenants die off or something then make it back perfect. Your question's seem a form of complaint instead of inquiry. I think you know enough doctrine to answer most of them your self.

Apparently he did it in the most obscure way possible – by condoning it.

Again an atheistic self-contradiction. One half yells too restrictive and the other yells too permissive. The only thing certain is it can't be both. One of the top ten complaints against God is his frequent and inconvenient moral injunctions so how is it you claim the polar opposite is the problem? In fact I think the most prolific concepts associated with God by all sides is first love, and the second moral constraint.

Well, that’s a convenient excuse, isn’t it.

That was not even in an excuse category. I have no idea what your saying. However facts are usually convenient as explanations (you know being true and all).

We all have a moral conscience, but we can only fully use it if we believe in your god.

Since the Bible claims he created it and only with him is morality as truth even possible one kind of follows the other.

I found your explanation lacking.

As you would find any similarly inconvenient explanation regardless of source or truth.

In my view, we fix what we think is wrong with the world ourselves because we are the only ones around to do so.

We certainly are doing a bang up job at it so far. We literally kill ourselves off on an industrial scale. If not bad enough we reason ourselves into thinking it "right" even though right makes no sense without God.

I don’t know who you’re talking about, but so what? I disagree with them.

That says quite a lot. Sounds like a 60's hippy. What are you rebelling against "what do you got?" I am out of time.

 

[camanintx]

BTW God is the one thing that even theoretically exists outside of the natural and so is not bound by natural rules or tendencies.

And why does God get a special pass? Do you have evidence that anything, much less God, can exist outside of the natural?

You are partly right on both claims so let me clarify. It is an absolute fact that the rise in secularism in the US has corresponded with a general decline in moral data.

Considering that rates for homicide, violent crime, teen pregnancy, abortion, divorce, infidelity are declining while charitable giving and high school graduation rates are up, your claims of a moral decline ring hollow.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Again an atheistic self-contradiction. One half yells too restrictive and the other yells too permissive. The only thing certain is it can't be both. One of the top ten complaints against God is his frequent and inconvenient moral injunctions so how is it you claim the polar opposite is the problem? In fact I think the most prolific concepts associated with God by all sides is first love, and the second moral constraint.

There is nothing self-contradictory about believing some things too permissive, and some things too stringent. Only if they are the SAME things does it become self-contradictory. Just because one might talk about God or religion, doesn't mean it has to be a single macro-opinion. It depends on what is being stated about the specific topic at hand, and how that fits into a larger world view.

Contradictory is an atheist associating the concept of love or moral constraint with a being they don't believe exists. They can only associate those things with the followers or believers of said God.

 

[1robin]

There is nothing self-contradictory about believing some things too permissive, and some things too stringent.

There is if it is God that this is being claimed about, and that was Chesterton's point. God as a concept is defined as never contradictory. He can’t be too demanding and too permissive. Claiming he is one is hard enough to prove. God as a concept only speaks truth. He can't demand two contradictory things. However that does not stop preference and ignorance from claiming has in fact done so.

Only if they are the SAME things does it become self-contradictory.

They are, God. If this was a human that could be two contradictory things at different times then fine or if we are discussing some oriental pluralistic (impossible) concept of God then fine.

Just because one might talk about God or religion, doesn't mean it has to be a single macro-opinion. It depends on what is being stated about the specific topic at hand, and how that fits into a larger world view.

I tell you what why don't you be specific and then we can debate a specific issue.

Contradictory is an atheist associating the concept of love or moral constraint with a being they don't believe exists. They can only associate those things with the followers or believers of said God

If they do so they are incorrect. The character of God is not reelected perfectly by Christians. At best you could have said his word but his followers are a muddy reflection and God is not on the hook for their actions inconsistent with his character. Actually claiming God is anything and simultaneously not believing he exists is inherently contradictory. Did you view the quotes by Chesterton that started this whole line of discussion? It would help as it was his argument.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Argghhh!!!! There is nothing about the fact that we value anything that gives anything objective value. A good test for the objectiveness of a concept in this context is "would it still be true if no one believed it?" If we value something and preserve it that does not give it actual value or make it's preservation actually moral. It is convenience and preference alone that we have without God. Not right and wrong. Evolution’s equations spit out results and one is just as good or right as any other.

Sure there is. If everyone practiced slavery, would slavery still be wrong? Ask the slaves what they think about that.
If everyone believed in cannibalism and murder and practiced it, there would be nobody left to declare anything.

We have convenience and preference with or without god. We have rights and wrongs with or without god. We collectively declare what is right or wrong – we are the only ones around to do so. How do you think we determine that psychopathy is deviant behavior? And why do we even care? Think about it.

The system of morality that you believe in (which I contend isn’t actually a system of morality at all), is based on opinion and preference. They rely solely on god’s opinion and preferences. You assume he’s good and right because the Bible says so.

It actually went from being worth about $1.17 to about a quarter under Roosevelt. A dollar's worth has no connection to actual value. As you say a dollar is worth whatever we say and is not natural fact. Nor is right and wrong a natural fact of nature. Only with God are right and wrong natural facts. I have just about given up hope you can understand this or are willing to.

I understand what you’re saying, I simply disagree with your assertion that there is nothing objective and/or that nothing can have any value without your god inserted into the equation. What we value does matter, and we’re the only ones around to make such determinations.

No, I am talking about big coral rings found on the ocean floor. (Forgot who carved them). I do not think they are equivalent to what I am talking, they are equivalent to what you are talking about, that is my point. The value of a lump of coal and the law against murder are based on the exact same thing without God. Opinion.

I have never head of these carved coral rights that you speak of. Could you provide more information? Google isn’t giving me anything.

Giving value to lumps of coal and creating laws against murder are not the same thing. The former is arbitrary, while the latter is based on reason and analysis of a given situation.

Now that is copping out. I am talking about concepts. You can evaluate a concept without the concept occurring can you not.

I would declare it wrong because I value human life and apparently god does not. How’s that?

There exists no standard by which to declare God not good or more accurately "not right". It is a meaningless question.

Talk about opinion! How do you know that god’s nature is good? Which standard are you using to declare such a thing? They’re very important questions, if you ask me. How are you declaring that god is good in the first place? If no standard exists to declare he’s not good, then by what standard are you using to declare that he is good?

No, they exist as a part of God's nature. Morals are a product of his nature not something he invented.

So you believe. The point is, how do you know this? How do you know that right and wrong don’t exist beyond your god? If morality is part of nature, then maybe it does exist outside of your god.

Again if God killed everyone on Earth besides you on what basis could you declare it wrong? You are actually arguing that a transcendent all-knowing moral agent is not a basis for morality but a fallible, limited, and transient biological anomaly is. That is doomed to destroy its self.

Well, if your god existed I could point out that “he” declared murder to be wrong. So he’d be violating his own moral pronouncement.

You’re declaring that the god you believe in is the one that exists. I’m wondering how you know this and why it’s more likely than the one Plato and Russell talked about.

If I argued as you do, I could just point out that nobody has been able to refute the Euthyphro dilemma and it’s a rock solid argument so you shouldn’t even bother trying to refute it. I won’t do that though because I find it silly.

Yes it is. In war one group decides it is moral to take their enemies things and the other decides the same is immoral. Both can't be right and both are derived from he same process you are. Both are convenience and preference based and neither one makes it's self a natural moral fact.

How does that make it subject to personal whim?

If we did think this kind of thing was moral, we’d be living in chaos, which is not conducive to social creatures such as ourselves. The fact that we can consider the consequences of actions and behaviors is something you’re really overlooking in this whole thing.

The god you believe in, as portrayed in the Bible apparently thought it was okay to invade, murder and steal other peoples’ things. So maybe it is moral.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course but it is one that can never have an absolute justification without a God.

Sure it can. And it does.

Prove that human wellbeing is the true basis for morality. You are assuming it is and then declaring anyone who does not agree wrong based on nothing. Why is not cow wellbeing the proper basis?

This is ridiculous. That is what morality is based on. Being humans and social creatures, we care about human well-being, which is why morality emerged in the first place. That is what morality is. If we didn’t care about well-being then we wouldn’t care about morality and we wouldn’t have it. If you’re talking about morality that’s not based on well-being, then I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

We do care about animal well-being, to a certain extent. We don’t allow people to torture animals. And other animals certainly care about their well-being. Why do you think we have such stringent rules against animal testing?

There are only so many options you declare human wellbeing the basis because:
1. It is convenient and selfish.

To some extent it can be. But morality is not always convenient. Maybe I’d like to steal a t-shirt I like at the store, but there are a number of reasons why I do not. I don’t want to go to jail, I don’t feel right ripping someone off who worked hard to start a business, I don’t want the prices in the store to go up because people are always stealing things and I wouldn’t want someone stealing a t-shirt that belonged to me. Also, I don’t want to live in a world where everywhere just takes whatever they want from whomever they want whenever they please. I can imagine that world, and I don’t want to live in it.

Morality can be selfish, but at the same time it can be beneficial to others. As Hitchens used to point out, he liked donating blood because it made him feel good about helping someone who needed it and, and because he wasn’t actually losing a pint of blood, while someone else was gaining one. The “selfish” aspect of it being that he realized that he may need blood in the future, and hoped that others would be as willing to give it as he was. Studies do indeed show that people are more willing to help someone when they’ve seen others helping people.

2. It based on might makes right.

No, that’s what your belief is based on. God is the mightiest, and what he says is right, no matter what we think about it.

3. It is based on intelligence equals worth.

How do you come up with that?

Without God this is pure specieism and no less unjustifiable than what the Nazi's did.

No it isn’t. We care about the well-being of animals. Do you have a pet?

Because of exactly what I have claimed. Humanity can access a factual moral realm that it can't justify or ground without God. For the 100th time this is epistemology not ontology.

They were able to do this because god gave us a moral conscience and everyone who fought against the Nazis were Christian?? What is it that you have claimed??

If evolution is spitting out answers to an equation then how is it determinative of what should be instead of only what is. That same equation generated over-predation by Jackals, the eating of their young by lions, or the torture of a mouse by a cat. It also means that when tribe a wipes out every member that does not contribute to tribe A's survival and the enslavement of those that do simple what the equation spit out and not judge able by other anomalies the equation spit out. BTW many of humanities greatest moral actions are thought great because they defy survival, and evolution does not explain or promote fairness, equality, or honor. Evolution is not data dependent it is driven by self-preservation. No monkeys ever built a library and no lizards ever goggled anything.

Why do you keep just focusing on one tiny aspect of the broader explanation I’ve provided? When did I ever say that evolution alone was responsible for human morality? It’s part of it, sure, but not all of it.

Evolution doesn’t just spit out answers to equations. Evolution provided us with some of the tools we use to determine morality. But there’s more to it than that, as I thought I explained. Humans evolved as social creatures, and as such we developed empathy somewhere along the way. That plays a part in how we view morality because we have the ability to imagine how someone else may feel as a result of a certain action we may take against them. Kin selection and altruism play a part as well and help to explain the problem you think you’ve pointed out about behaviors that appear to defy survival where a person risks their life for that of another person (I’m assuming this is what you’re getting at). Human beings are data dependent because we have brains with prefrontal cortices and amygdalae provided to us via evolution. Our large brains allow us to be able to learn and analyze the world around us and determine what kind of world we want to live in. Do we want to live in a world where we could be murdered or have everything we own taken from us at any given moment? Or do we want to live in a world where we can raise our children safely and ensure the maximal amount of happiness is available to us?

Your assertion that evolution doesn’t promote equality is strange given that evolution shows us that we’re all made of the same stuff and we all come from the same place.

Who cares if no monkey ever built a library or no lizard ever googled anything? What on earth are you talking about and what on earth do either of those things have to do with morality? If you actually want to talk about morality in the animal kingdom, how is it that a chimp knows when it’s being cheated? Or how is it that a dog feels shame? How is it that an elephant would rescue and rear a baby sheep that lost its mother? Could it be that they’re social animals like us and therefore have developed their own sense of morality? Think about it.

Whether it is possible is not the issue. BTW what was true of Nazism could very easily be true of humanity under the conditions I listed. Thousands of people killing off millions of others is not an isolated condition. The point was and is theoretical not observational and is not even dependent on likelihood or possibility regardless. Continued below.

Let’s walk through your scenario. So the Nazis kill off all opposition to their ideology. And in your mind this would mean that there would be nobody left to value life? Do you not think the surviving people value at least their own lives and perhaps the lives of their family members? So we’re still left with people who value life.