Is an atheist worldview compatible with a belief in absolute moral values?

[Crypto2015]

No. Do you see sounds floating around ? Does that mean that sounds don't exist ?

You said that you were able to see them and hear them. Do other people hear them as well or is it just you? This detail can be important.

 

[Demonslayer]

Nothing comes from nothing.

Unless you place a label on that thing that says "GOD" and then the thing you claim is impossible is suddenly possible...just because of the name you gave it?

 

[viole]

No, but I know that I exist because I am a conscious being. Nothing comes from nothing. Hence, myself and the universe must have come from something that exists independently from the universe. Since time is a property of the universe, time does not exist outside of the universe. Hence, the origin of the universe is atemporal (eternal). This atemporal origin of the universe must also be personal, since atemporal impersonal causes can only originate eternal consequences, and we know that the universe is not eternal. Hence, the origin of myself and of the universe must be eternal and personal. This origin closely resembles the Biblical God. Also, in Thomas Jefferson's words:

I wonder why people like WL Craig take the painstaking way of studying phylosophy and theology for so mny years when the proof of Gods existence is so easy: God exists because conscious beings exist. What a waste of time.

Incidentally, If time is a property of the Universe then the Universe itself is eternal. How can time be temporal? can you tell me at what rate it is changing? 1 second per second?

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Oh, so you do not agree that humans must be divided in castes. I ask because the Hindu Gods satisfies your requirement too. They can explain the existence of conscious beings and the temporal Universe, whatever that is. Could they be right instead of your God?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Koldo]

You said that you were able to see them and hear them. Do other people hear them as well or is it just you? This detail can be important.

I have never said that I can see and hear them. I merely compared the moral compass as being akin to sight and hearing. I don't need any sort of 'rational justification' for my sight and hearing, therefore I don't see why you would require one for my moral compass.

 

[dust1n]

Yours is an interesting position that I've seen before on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, I have yet to see an adequate defense of it. For one thing, how do you overcome the "subjective barrier" in epistemology in order to assert that the Bible can be known with certainty to be derived from deity? And if you cannot do that, what matters it how clear the Bible is or is not about morality?

I for the life of me have never understood how one takes an epistemology jump from God exists, to God has property a., b., c. because God also wrote a book, and he had a son, and he doesn't like gay sex or shellfish, and also sometimes he has prophets who slaughter children with bears, etc...

 

[Crypto2015]

I wonder why people like WL Craig take the painstaking way of studying phylosophy and theology for so mny years when the proof of Gods existence is so easy: God exists because conscious beings exist. What a waste of time.

Incidentally, If time is a property of the Universe then the Universe itself is eternal. How can time be temporal? can you tell me at what rate it is changing? 1 second per second?



Oh, so you do not agree that humans must be divided in castes. I ask because the Hindu Gods satisfies your requirement too. They can explain the existence of conscious beings and the temporal Universe, whatever that is. Could they be right instead of your God?

Ciao

- viole

Time is linked to the second law of thermodynamics. If there is no energy or mass (i.e., no universe) there can be no entropy and hence there can be no time. Regarding the identity of God, it is irrelevant for the present discussion.

 

[viole]

Time is linked to the second law of thermodynamics. If there is no energy or mass (i.e., no universe) there can be no entropy and hence there can be no time.

Nope. The time arrow is linked to thermodynamics. Not time itself, that has two directions. But let's neglect this.

If the Universe has entropy growth then time makes sense for the things within it. What makes you think that it makes sense for the Universe as a whole?

That is called the composition fallacy, if I am not mistaken.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Regarding the identity of God, it is irrelevant for the present discussion.

It is very relevant. For different Gods give different commands. So, who is the objective source that justifies your moral compass?

Ciao

- viole

 

[icehorse]

I'll claim that most of us on this thread would agree that virtually all of our morality - regardless of background - resolves down to the well being of conscious creatures (WBCC).

Not all for sure, philosophers can find corner cases, but for practical purposes, it always gets down to the well being of conscious creatures.

 

[bluegoo300]

The moral principles of which you are talking about are simply a social convention. You could argue that this social convention is based on psychological traits that derive from our evolutionary history. However, both conventions and traits deriving from evolution are either "right" or "wrong" only when there is an external source of morality upon which they can be judged. Conventions and evolutionary traits are not sources of morality in themselves. For example, evolution has programmed my brain in such a way that I feel that eating fat is desirable. This is so because our ancestors struggled against starvation for most of their evolutionary history. However, since I am a rational being, I can get to the conclusion that this psychological trait is harmful given my present environment. Hence, I resist that which has been imposed on me by evolution. Likewise, I may resist my urges to be compassionate, if I realize that compassion is harmful to me or to my group. We must conclude therefore that psychological traits derived from evolution are not right or wrong in themselves. Also, slavery was an acceptable social convention in most of the world during most of the history of mankind. If social conventions were always right, and if the majority were always right when it comes to morality, we would be forced to conclude that all abolitionist movements were immoral throughout most of the history of mankind. That means that social conventions are neither wrong nor right in themselves.

I agree however my point was that just because your either religious or non-religious has nothing to do with your moral standings.

 

[Sunstone]

I'll claim that most of us on this thread would agree that virtually all of our morality - regardless of background - resolves down to the well being of conscious creatures (WBCC).

Not all for sure, philosophers can find corner cases, but for practical purposes, it always gets down to the well being of conscious creatures.

I think it pretty much does for many -- perhaps even most -- of those folks who give it a bit of thought -- although they might not express their thoughts on it using quite the same language.

 

[Demonslayer]

I for the life of me have never understood how one takes an epistemology jump from God exists, to God has property a., b., c. because God also wrote a book, and he had a son, and he doesn't like gay sex or shellfish, and also sometimes he has prophets who slaughter children with bears, etc...

The reverse of this also baffles me, and it's a particularly dirty trick thiests sometimes use to try to paint atheists as bullheaded arrogant and closed-minded.

What happens is something like this:

1. The theist asks if you believe in their God (the book-writer, son-having, gay sex hating, damning people to hell God.)

2. Non-believer says "no, of course not"

3. The theist then says "how could you possibly know there aren't any powerful beings out there that we don't fully understand? You must some some arrogant know-it-all."

Wait, what? I just denied the existence of a very specific thing, not a very general thing.

 

[dust1n]

The reverse of this also baffles me, and it's a particularly dirty trick thiests sometimes use to try to paint atheists as bullheaded arrogant and closed-minded.

What happens is something like this:

1. The theist asks if you believe in their God (the book-writer, son-having, gay sex hating, damning people to hell God.)

2. Non-believer says "no, of course not"

3. The theist then says "how could you possibly know there aren't any powerful beings out there that we don't fully understand? You must some some arrogant know-it-all."

Wait, what? I just denied the existence of a very specific thing, not a very general thing.

Yup, and the double-standards on the requirements for certainty will be around forever.

It's especially confounding in regards to absolute morals, considering the OP recognizes that there is uncertainty implicit in all these various claims, yet makes the one exception being the Bible, of course, which is how we objectively know that God does exist, for no particular reason what-so-ever...

 

[Koldo]

For the sake of this topic, let us consider that something that we find outrageous is actually objectively moral.
I am not talking about something that allows for a greater good, but rather that our concept of good is totally divergent on this specific regard to that which is objectively good.
Then so what? Why would it matter? Who would care?

Morality is only relevant in so far as it pertains the way through which we perceive right and wrong actions, not as an entity that exists despite our perceptions.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

No, but I know that I exist because I am a conscious being. Nothing comes from nothing. Hence, myself and the universe must have come from something that exists independently from the universe. Since time is a property of the universe, time does not exist outside of the universe. Hence, the origin of the universe is atemporal (eternal). This atemporal origin of the universe must also be personal, since atemporal impersonal causes can only originate eternal consequences, and we know that the universe is not eternal. Hence, the origin of myself and of the universe must be eternal and personal. This origin closely resembles the Biblical God. Also, in Thomas Jefferson's words:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

There's no rational link between 'everything that exists has a cause' and 'everything that exists was created by the Abrahamic god'. Any argument you posit for your god being the cause of everything can be applied equally to other, older gods.

For example, the ancient Greeks posited that their laws of hospitality (which is a moral code) were given to them by Zeus. Probably every human culture to have existed has claimed their laws and moral codes ultimately stem from their gods or from some culture hero. Christianity is no exception, nor is there claim any more true than anyone else's.

 

[Crypto2015]

There's no rational link between 'everything that exists has a cause' and 'everything that exists was created by the Abrahamic god'. Any argument you posit for your god being the cause of everything can be applied equally to other, older gods.

For example, the ancient Greeks posited that their laws of hospitality (which is a moral code) were given to them by Zeus. Probably every human culture to have existed has claimed their laws and moral codes ultimately stem from their gods or from some culture hero. Christianity is no exception, nor is there claim any more true than anyone else's.

There is a logical link between "something exists" and "there is a God". I cannot prove that the Creator is the God of Abraham using that logical link, but it seems very reasonable to assume that it is. For example, the Greek gods were not eternal.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

There is a logical link between "something exists" and "there is a God".

Please explain it.

I cannot prove that the Creator is the God of Abraham using that logical link, but it seems very reasonable to assume that it is.

Great start to the sentence. Kudos for your honesty. I don't see why it's reasonable to assume it's the Abrahamic god beyond contemporary cultural bias in our respective parts of the world. Muslims would say the exact same thing in your place.

For example, the Greek gods were not eternal.

Not eternal? How would you know? Have you tried contacting them?

 

[Crypto2015]

Please explain it.



Great start to the sentence. Kudos for your honesty. I don't see why it's reasonable to assume it's the Abrahamic god beyond contemporary cultural bias in our respective parts of the world. Muslims would say the exact same thing in your place.



Not eternal? How would you know? Have you tried contacting them?

Zeus was born from Cronus and Rhea. The same can be said of Poseidon and Hades. Hence, none of them were eternal. I will let William Lane Craig explain the rest for me:

"We've concluded that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a first cause . . . . Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect which it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then why isn't the effect eternal? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?

. . . There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe's beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation "agent causation," and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. For example, a man sitting changelessly from eternity could freely will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By "choose" one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/personal-god#ixzz3rkIjIqCy

 

[viole]

Zeus was born from Cronus and Rhea. The same can be said of Poseidon and Hades. Hence, none of them were eternal. I will let William Lane Craig explain the rest for me:

"We've concluded that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a first cause . . . . Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect which it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then why isn't the effect eternal? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?

. . . There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe's beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation "agent causation," and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. For example, a man sitting changelessly from eternity could freely will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By "choose" one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/personal-god#ixzz3rkIjIqCy

If you are right, I think it is equally possible that this personal creator looks like a giant and eternal spiritual turtle that created the Universe so that little turtles could exist.

You are Christian, I presume. Do you have strong evidence that this Creator is Jesus Father? If you do, why do you venture into the mine field of philosophical justifications or cosmology to prove a God when the evidence that Jesus is God is so clear cut?

And if it is not so clear, why are you so sure that He was the uncaused cause? Could my turtle creator be it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Crypto2015]

If you are right, I think it is equally possible that this personal creator looks like a giant and eternal spiritual turtle that created the Universe so that little turtles could exist.

You are Christian, I presume. Do you have strong evidence that this Creator is Jesus Father? If you do, why do you venture into the mine field of philosophical justifications or cosmology to prove a God when the evidence that Jesus is God is so clear cut?

And if it is not so clear, why are you so sure that He was the uncaused cause? Could my turtle creator be it?

Ciao

- viole

I think it is a combination of different factors, but it all points to the existence of a God that loves us and cares about us. I tried different religions: Catholicism, Buddhism, New Age. However, only accepting Jesus as my personal Savior and opening my life to Him has given me peace and has filled the emptiness that I always had had in my heart. After I became a Christian I experienced a lot of personal and supernatural experiences that leave no room for doubt: despite my insignificance God is always by my side and comes to my rescue every time I need Him. I will not share these experiences because they are very intimate and would not convince another person. To me, on the contrary, they are as clear as they could be. Anyway, there are many things in the Bible that should convince anyone. For instance, the prophecies contained in Isaiah chapter 53 or Isaiah chapter 9.