Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[jarofthoughts]

I do not think you guys are getting it. You have above explained why murder is not convient for the flourishing of society. You have not shown murder is actually wrong, you did not even show why the flourishing of society is actually good. You simply declared it was. You need to think a little deeper. Try this, prove that without God the maximization of human civilization is actually right. Why shouldn't the noble gnat maximize it's survival by wiping us out. Without God their claims are just as valid and arbitrary as ours. Without God we have no more actual value than a cockroach. To maximize our societal growth we should kill the cockroaches yet they have just as much value as we do without God. The fact that absolute morals exist explains why you are assuming them without even realizing it. You are smuggling in and simply assuming concepts that are only valid with God yet you are arguing against him. You wish to keep the morals but deny the only sufficient foundation for them. You have simply shown that murder is not convienient for humans. That is a far cry from proving murder is actually wrong. Not as easy as you seemed to think. That is why most atheist professional debaters just concede morals have no foundation more certain than opinion. I do not agree of course but at least they are being honest and realize what their views limit them to and I can respectfully disagree and commend their honesty. Trying to do otherwise by non believers is just desperate. You might as well tell me that perpetual motion machines are possible. It is impossible in both cases. I will extend you an olive branch and say that just as the law of conservation of energy makes over unity engines impossible, so to does cause and effect and philosophic principles make moral absolutes impossible without God. If you will heed this you can avoid a lot of typing for nothing. Even the pros can't do it and just concede the issue, your choice.

Ah... I see your problem now.
You're thinking of right and wrong in terms of absolute morality, a concept that doesn't actually exist out here in the real world.
That doesn't mean that there is no right or wrong.
Just that there isn't no right and wrong without someone's viewpoint taken into account.
Your argumentation is so all over the place that I actually didn't see that that was what you were arguing for in the first place.

But, hey, let's play with this a bit.
Let's say that there is a god (which you believe and I don't, but that is irrelevant for now).
You STILL don't have absolute morality.
God's point of view is just as subjective as mine.

What if I disagree with god on what's right and wrong?
How do we decide which of us is correct?
And if god has decided that, say, murder is wrong, can we then hold god to the same standards that he demands of us?
Because if not...then that means that god has double standards...

 

[McBell]

This is just getting weird. Let's see what we got here. We have the old trusty accusation without justification. As well as I think the fourth time this mere assertion was given without a single indication of what it is exactly that I have double standards concerning. That even after I asked specifically for it.



Then we have the tried and true, I can't defeat your position or make even a comment on it that has any meaningfull bearing as written so instead you will rewrite it in an arbitrary manner that allows you to attempt a rebuttal. My position is not reflected by your statements above and so it needs no response beyond that. I also reject your appeal to the absurd as I have no idea what a Hovind style argument is.



And finally the sure fire attempt equating an absurdity to the argument that you invented and credited to me for the sole purpose of allowing this attempt at a comparison of invalid equalities. This is not logical on top of having no application as its previously invented mirror argument does not reflect my original contention.

Irrelevant conclusion based on an invalid concept. Maybe you should back up and read what I actually claimed again. If God exists murder is actually wrong. Prove without God that it is. It is a simple trouble shooting, if then senario. It isn't complicated.

Well, at least you are consistent with your denial and double standards.

Since you firmly believe that you cannot even possibly be wrong, I see no sense in beating this dead horse.

 

[1robin]

Well, at least you are consistent with your denial and double standards.

Since you firmly believe that you cannot even possibly be wrong, I see no sense in beating this dead horse.

I would appreciate it if you would practice a little more self control when it comes to these drive by accusation fests. Quote a single statement I made where I said any thing like " I can't possibly by wrong". Ok, before you give up again please take one last look at what is going on here. You at some point a few dozen posts or so back said:

It hard to take seriously someone whose is proud of their blatant double standards.

Let's look at what is going on here. You just out of the blue basically say "double standards" Mestemia wins. Now if I was to say Mestemia's arguments are fallacious, I win, would you reply that "yes you are" and that you concede the debate. Yes, no? Then why do you expect that I would? Unlike you I am under no such dillusion that I merely need to make an assertion and there fore by virtue of you typing it out alone, it is automatically true and you will agree and apologise. Why are you? I have repeatedy asked what it is specifically that I have double standards concerning. The only desperate attempt at that by you was this beauty:

let us take your challenge and remove all the fluff and window dressing:

1. morals exist
2. god exists
3. I cannot fathom how morals can exist with out god
therefore
4. you have to have god in order to have morals.
​

Since this is the only thing you actually linked to double standards let's see if it is true.

1. Morals exist.

If we are discussing morals it is necessary to conclude morals exist in order to have a discussion about it. Since almost every one believes they do and acts as if they do then it is hardly a contentious issue. The only contention is over the nature of the foundation for morality. My main contention was "prove that murder is wrong without God, and that does not state that in fact murder is an actual immoral" in fact I know from hundreds of hours of debate that that is your only possible response. If you had stated that instead of making personal comments from the sidelines then I would have replied "exactly" and we could have stopped there. If your conclusion is based on a premise that morals are known not to exist then I can offer no resolution because every one but you even in their recent posts in this thread believe morality exists to some extent. You just might need to sit this one out.

2. god exists

Once again it is necessary to hypothetically assume God exists if we are to discuss him meaningfully. My claims were not based on any assertion that God exists is a proven fact. My points were hypothetically based on if God does exist then what is the effect on morality. The conclusion was that IF the God of the Bible exists then murder is actually wrong. There is no concievable argument against that worth making. The counter conclusion twas hat IF God does not exist then murder can not actually be shown to be wrong. You are transfferring an uncertainty concerning God's existence to what his existance would mean. That type of scrutiny is invalid for a hypothetical discussion of this type.

3. I cannot fathom how morals can exist with out god
therefore

This is simply not true. I did not conclude that the existance of God means murder is actually wrong because of anything concerning his non existance. That doesn't even make any sence. I concluded that if God exists then murder is actualy wrong based on the fact that IF the God the Bible exists then has absolute sovereignty and the capability of holding every single human being accountable to that standard. I can't even begin to guess where you got this from.

4. you have to have god in order to have morals.

I have never said this in any form. In fact I have said the exact opposite repeatedly even just few posts back in this thread. You may adopt any moral you wish, you simply cannot ground them suffeciently for the needs of society. With God you have a suffecient and far more reliable justification for claiming murder is in fact wrong.

Given these issues and the lack of any double standard demonstrated at all then I can adopt no conclusion except you are wrong. If you can't understand this its because you do not want to. Did you not understand that this was a (if given this the that means __________) hypothetical claim? I explained it in detail to the other poster.

 

[1robin]

And this is where our thinking diverges, because the way I see it, whether there is a God or not, we still have to live and deal with this world. If you say that 'there's nothing to live for without God,' are you saying that you are a nihilist unless you are guaranteed personal immortality?

I am saying that without God everything that makes life worthwhile is greatly decreased. Your statement is too ambitious to accurately define what I believe.

We have obligations to family and people around us, including people we work with, and the place or nation we live in

Can you prove that we actually do have obligations to other without God. When you eliminate any ultimate judge it is very hard to assert we are actually required to do anything.

And prior to the technology era and its teaching of endless progress towards a technology-driven future paradise, there did exist many teachings among people who were close to nature, that people had an obligation to nature and to making sure the world they left behind would be fit to live in for those following in the generations afterwords.

The positive effects gained if we actually did improve anything about life
is trumped by the fact that it inevitably ends with no Justice or meaning and in futility. As that saying goes "the universe does not end with a bang (without God) rather with a whimper. Do you not on some primal instinctual level believe or suspect that things were not meant to be this way? That some how this is not right, that something must have gone wrong somewhere and produced things that terrify and defy all intuition concerning meaning, purpose, and destination? Anyway I have never said the Earth should be abused at will. The Bible implies that we are to be good Stewards of what we were give. It's just that non believers seem to obsess over some kind of sacred false hope in clinging to the idea we must go on and on and on as a race. I just don't understand the level of hope placed in such a hopeless concept. It is almost obsessed about with a religous ferver.

No, it wasn't, it was the popular press than ran with stories of a coming ice age in the 70's! I know, because I lived in an area that experienced the worst of what has been called the Blizzard of 77, which contributed to the deaths of more than a hundred people...mostly elderly, who were snowbound for weeks in areas of the southern Niagara Peninsula, where falling and blowing snow piled up to rooftops in many areas. It was easy to believe in an ice age after that winter! But, the claim made now by climate change deniers that the experts were predicting an ice age is debunked by simple studies like this one which show that even back in the 70's, when much less was known about climate, only 10% of research published between 1960 and 1970 predicted continued cooling. The majority predicted warming and about 20% were neutral. The claim is one of the most easily debunked by the historical evidence.

I agree that it never was a competent theory but I know for a fact that a team of the greatest climate scientists in the world did conclude and officially present their dire prophecies of a looming ice age to the UN and others. Even NASA officially added their consent. Of course the media was involved but that was incidental. I would clarify that it seems to be more associated with the late 70's instead of the 80's.

The world's oceans have been absorbing half of the carbon that we have pumped into the atmosphere for the last 200 years. The oceans are not dumping carbon, but there may be a point where carbon absorption stops. In the meantime, ocean acidification caused by this extra carbon is likely a more serious problem than melting arctic sea ice and atmospheric CO2 levels, since the oceans themselves may be in the process of dying, as they did in a couple of previous mass extinctions.

Let me restate it. Even if we never existed the Oceans would still emit over 90% of the total CO2 output. Also that it can be reliably demonstrated that heat CO2 follows heat to a great extent not the other way around that we are being told. Of all my claims posted to you, this one is the least reliable (not to suggest it is not reliable) and further study is warranted to clarify or verify the specific facts.

 

[Falvlun]

You STILL don't have absolute morality.
God's point of view is just as subjective as mine.

Not to mention, Bible God's morality certainly morphed and changed over the years. So much for absolute standard.

 

[1robin]

Not to mention, Bible God's morality certainly morphed and changed over the years. So much for absolute standard.

It is irrelevant what label you stick on God's moral requirements, they are absolute and we are universally accountable. They are in effect objective from our point of view regardless what you call them.

His moral nature did not change over time. He like a parent instituted evolving moral requirements as man changed and his unique purposes were carried out over time. See progressive revelation if you wish a comprehensive explanation of these issues. The Bible says God has never changed but he augmented his instructions as needs and circumstances changed.

 

[1robin]

Ah... I see your problem now.

First I will apologize in advance. I posted a long response in response to this post by you and the browser said that the server was busy and then erased everything I had written. This will be a consolidated version. This first statement by you has slight hints of arrogance and pride in it that are out of character for you.

You're thinking of right and wrong in terms of absolute morality, a concept that doesn't actually exist out here in the real world.
That doesn't mean that there is no right or wrong.
Just that there isn't no right and wrong without someone's viewpoint taken into account.

Actually this touches on the core of the issue but you have it cross threaded to a certain extent. If we assume God exists in our hypothetical argument then there is a suffecient foundation for absolute right and wrong. You said that I mistakenly assumed that. That is not accurate. If we are discussing God then we must assume he exists at some point in order to discuss the implications that his reality introduces. You may believe that the assumption of God is inaccurate and that is your right as it is not a universally proven fact. However you can't honestly say that if God is assumed to exist then that does not inescapably mean that his morality is absolute. That is the core of my point.

Your argumentation is so all over the place that I actually didn't see that that was what you were arguing for in the first place.

My argument is based on the ones made by professional debaters in every debate on morals where a theist is involved. I may have stated it in a little bit of disarray because of the questions and directions taken by your and others counter claimants. I will attempt to be more clear in the future now that you have caught up.

But, hey, let's play with this a bit.
Let's say that there is a god (which you believe and I don't, but that is irrelevant for now).

As I said and you exhibited here God must be assumed to exist in order to discuss the issue. However do not assume that I am claiming that is a universally proven fact.

You STILL don't have absolute morality.
God's point of view is just as subjective as mine.

I think you are making a common mistake here. Your are confusing absolute with objective. I happen to believe that God's morality is objective but that issue is open for debate. There really isn't a meaningful debate concerning whether it is absolute. That only requires that whatever produced the moral requirements must have complete sovereignty over all of the subjects of that requirement. Additionally what or who is responsible for the moral system must be capable of bringing all of it's subjects to accountability concerning it. Plus, that morals are independent of the opinion of it's subjects. God meets all those requirements in spades. That means it is absolute without question and is at least objective in effect if not actually objective.

What if I disagree with god on what's right and wrong?

It would be irrelevant. It would have no more meaning or validity than a child thinking his parents are unfair because they said he could not have a pony. The intellectual gap between the child and his parents that renders his protests invalid is infinitely more substantial between us and the Lord.

How do we decide which of us is correct?

God is. Only the Bible demonstrates God's sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, and his perfect benevolence etc.... If you can match Jesus' absolute perfection then we might reconsider. Plus the fact that if real he knows everything needed to perfectly select the most just action possible.

And if god has decided that, say, murder is wrong, can we then hold god to the same standards that he demands of us?

Why is it that you insist he is restricted to obedience to a moral law he gave to finite creatures. That is no more valid than suggesting that a child may reasonably demand his parents must obey every rule that was required of him. Why are principles not related to God easily understood and accepted without reservation, but if God is involved those same simple principles are now infinitely problematic.

Because if not...then that means that god has double standards...

You may arbitrarily label it with a description that has negative connotations if you wish. No label will make the concept any less valid or perfectly reasonable for the reasons I listed above among many others I did not post.

 

[work in progress]

I don't think that's exactly what I said. If it was it was not exactly what I believe. I think that commonality is BEST explained by a common designer. Other sources can by used to attempt to explain it but I think are less likely. What evolution produces is remarkable and radical diversity biologically speaking there is no reason to think that it would produce a fairly narrow band of morality.

Living creatures certainly have diverged over the last 3.5 billion years or so, but there are commonalities that virtually all animals share. One would be bilateral symmetry; it is also extremely common...because of being descendent from some distant ancestor when multicellular life began, of having a head that can be maneuvered separately than the main part of the body and which contains the brain and eyes....although where there are exactly located...in front...on the sides will vary. Also, there is a tendency for animals dealing with similar environmental pressures to adopt similar forms to deal with them. So, even though marsupials don't even have a close connection with live-bearing mammals, many have similar appearances. One of the most striking being the Thylacine....commonly known as the Tasmanian Tiger; extinct since 1933.

I don't think common appearances or behaviours are evidence of a designer -- as this "tiger" which was also called a wolf by early explorers is not even remotely related to the cat or dog families. But if someone wants to believe it qualifies as evidence, I think that comes out of that pre-existing belief in a creator, which sifts through evidence looking for confirmation, rather than just evaluating the evidence available.

Actually I use a similar argument as this as evidence for God. First let me restate something I think you have forgotten. I believe and the Bible teaches that all people are born with a God given conscience. This has radically suppressed by the fall but the core commonality we see is I believe a reflection of this. As the Bible states this conscience is repressed by a force of will as well to varying degrees. When we are saved that conscience is quickened so to speak. Among many other things when I was saved I could not bear to hear cursing for quite a while. I am a Navy vet and up until that point literally cursed like a sailor yet that one night radically changed that as well as many other things. Any way according to many geneticists I have heard they say that behavior like instincts is not genetically coded. If as you say that new born's are not a blank slate, behavior is not taught early on, and can't be genetically transferred then that makes God a very likely source for what you say above.

Geneticists would explain changes in well worn behaviours as an epigenetic phenomena. One thing that really needs to be cleared up is that the old arguments of nature vs. nurture don't exist anymore among the scientists studying genetics and neuroscience. So, you might attribute the intervention of God for helping you stop swearing, and many alcoholics and drug addicts who go to A.A. will say God has helped them deal with their addictions. An interesting look at how addiction works and how the neural pathways leading to addictive behaviour can be altered, was provided by a neuroscientist - Mark Lewis, who, himself was a serious drug addict, and got kicked out of grad school earlier in life for stealing drugs from a lab and almost criminally prosecuted. Amazingly, in his own story: Memoirs Of An Adddicted Brain, he is able to provide the kind of technical background and first-hand explanations of how addiction works that only someone with a similar life experience could provide. And, his often technical explanations of his addictive behaviours do not appeal to the supernatural for an explanation.

Many baffling questions that previously have had supernatural explanations, have been explained with natural ones that work by the forces in our world and processes that we can eventually understand. Where the faith divide leaves us right now is that naturalists are following what you could interpret as a faith-based assumption that the remaining black box mysteries in the universe will also be filled in with natural explanations. While those who have an inner feeling that there is someone watching over us, and this universe has a purpose, have a faith-based assumption in a creator....and usually it's a personal creator with a mind like ours that we can relate to. Whether I would like to believe or not believe is something I worked through so long ago that I am going to go with my faith that continued scientific knowledge will reveal we live in a natural world, and only a natural world.

But, I don't get all bent out of shape because the majority of people believe in God, and will continue doing so. For one thing, the state of the world today (I believe the human race is facing extinction within 100 or no more than 200 years), and the growing realization that the technological progress we allowed to rise up and flourish with abandon at the start of the Industrial Revolution, was a huge mistake if we take a long view of history. Because we have sucked incredible amounts of non-renewable resources out of the ground (especially our energy sources) to make all this modernity possible. The realization that our future will almost certainly look dire and dystopian for those coming after us, rather than that high tech space age we thought would be the future back in the 60's. Secular humanism is by and large heavily interwoven with the unfounded faith in continued technological progress in the future. Most humanist writers say that our personal immortality is unimportant if we're contributing to make this a better world. But, what if it's not going to be a better world? Or at least it is highly unlikely that those in the future will have a better world, after we've used up so much and laid waste to the air, water and land. So....keeping all that in mind, it's hard for me to attack people for believing in God, if the best that naturalism can offer is looking at the horrors of this world and its future without wearing any rose-colored glasses.

 

[1robin]

Living creatures certainly have diverged over the last 3.5 billion years or so, but there are commonalities that virtually all animals share. One would be bilateral symmetry; it is also extremely common...because of being descendant from some distant ancestor when multicellular life began, of having a head that can be maneuvered separately than the main part of the body and which contains the brain and eyes....although where there are exactly located...in front...on the sides will vary. Also, there is a tendency for animals dealing with similar environmental pressures to adopt similar forms to deal with them. So, even though marsupials don't even have a close connection with live-bearing mammals, many have similar appearances. One of the most striking being the Thylacine....commonly known as the Tasmanian Tiger; extinct since 1933.

I don't think common appearances or behaviors are evidence of a designer -- as this "tiger" which was also called a wolf by early explorers is not even remotely related to the cat or dog families. But if someone wants to believe it qualifies as evidence, I think that comes out of that pre-existing belief in a creator, which sifts through evidence looking for confirmation, rather than just evaluating the evidence available.

This conversation is getting a little too concentrated on evolutionary principles. When you submit God as an explanation it is not usually based on bias, even though that is definitely the case at times. In this case it is not. It is a logical deduction that a common designer would produce many similarities. That is not really the point anyway. I think you are trying to say that commonality in design is proof that God does not exist. That just doesn't work. There is nothing in nature that is evidence against God. God is at least as good of an explanation for what we see as anything else that may be considered. In fact the prolific existence of extremely complex order and information we see is far more consistent with an intelligent designer that random chance. I think we are getting off subject a bit but if you wish to discuss whether nature suggests a God exists or not, that is fine with me.

Geneticists would explain changes in well worn behaviors as an epigenetic phenomena. One thing that really needs to be cleared up is that the old arguments of nature vs. nurture don't exist anymore among the scientists studying genetics and neuroscience. So, you might attribute the intervention of God for helping you stop swearing, and many alcoholics and drug addicts who go to A.A. will say God has helped them deal with their addictions. An interesting look at how addiction works and how the neural pathways leading to addictive behavior can be altered, was provided by a neuroscientist - Mark Lewis, who, himself was a serious drug addict, and got kicked out of grad school earlier in life for stealing drugs from a lab and almost criminally prosecuted. Amazingly, in his own story: Memoirs Of An Addicted Brain, he is able to provide the kind of technical background and first-hand explanations of how addiction works that only someone with a similar life experience could provide. And, his often technical explanations of his addictive behaviors do not appeal to the supernatural for an explanation.

As you have stated I think Psychology is a pseudoscience and place no confidence in anything they claim but that is not relevant here. I did not say God helped me stop cussing. I said not only did God instantly take away any desire I had to cuss, he also made cussing almost painfull for me to hear. Psychology has no explanation for this. When you observe people who underwent a radical, obvious, and permanent drastic change in actual character not just behavior. People like Johny Cash or George Foreman who went from thugs and rebels to almost saint like behavior, who went from hating God to loving, and evil to self sacrifice defy any psychological explanation. Not to mention that they were not even exposed to any concealing at the time and claim to have had a radical, unique, and profound experience with God that instantly and permanently changed their core character. Attempts to provide other and far more illogical explanations because the most likely explanation, and the one the people claim themselves, has inconvenient implications, hints at desperation.

Many baffling questions that previously have had supernatural explanations, have been explained with natural ones that work by the forces in our world and processes that we can eventually understand. Where the faith divide leaves us right now is that naturalists are following what you could interpret as a faith-based assumption that the remaining black box mysteries in the universe will also be filled in with natural explanations. While those who have an inner feeling that there is someone watching over us, and this universe has a purpose, have a faith-based assumption in a creator....and usually it's a personal creator with a mind like ours that we can relate to. Whether I would like to believe or not believe is something I worked through so long ago that I am going to go with my faith that continued scientific knowledge will reveal we live in a natural world, and only a natural world.

I think you are slightly confused here. If I claim that God created the moon out of a feather 8000 years ago and that is shown to be false that has no effect on God or the Bible. It only matters if they show that a specific claim in the Bible is actually inaccurate. That has not happened. Proving something someone dreamed up and attributed to God was wrong is no indictment against God or the Bible. There is no scientific claim in the Bible that has ever been shown false. In fact most of the scientific claims in the Bible could not have been known at the time they were recorded yet they are all perfectly true and consistent with modern scientific conclusions.

But, I don't get all bent out of shape because the majority of people believe in God, and will continue doing so. For one thing, the state of the world today (I believe the human race is facing extinction within 100 or no more than 200 years)

I believe your time frame is accurate but for very different reasons, and I believe it will be Armageddon not extension that is coming. Every single prediction that the Bible gives concerning the end times has either happened or is easily seen to be currently in the making especially concerning middle eastern politics. I do of course KNOW exactly when but soon seems to be obvious, even the temple's reconstruction that will immediately precede the end has a current fund gathering effort under way.

and the growing realization that the technological progress we allowed to rise up and flourish with abandon at the start of the Industrial Revolution, was a huge mistake if we take a long view of history. Because we have sucked incredible amounts of non-renewable resources out of the ground (especially our energy sources) to make all this modernity possible. The realization that our future will almost certainly look dire and dystopia for those coming after us, rather than that high tech space age we thought would be the future back in the 60's. Secular humanism is by and large heavily interwoven with the unfounded faith in continued technological progress in the future. Most humanist writers say that our personal immortality is unimportant if we're contributing to make this a better world. But, what if it's not going to be a better world? Or at least it is highly unlikely that those in the future will have a better world, after we've used up so much and laid waste to the air, water and land. So....keeping all that in mind, it's hard for me to attack people for believing in God, if the best that naturalism can offer is looking at the horrors of this world and its future without wearing any rose-colored glasses.

Your claims about the bad influence technological development has had whether right or wrong are pretty much incidental to me. However it does add to my position that the almost obsessive faith and hope derived from a belief in humanities future is a strange and insufficient reason for actual hope. My world view renders the issue far less important than those without it.

 

[jarofthoughts]

First I will apologize in advance. I posted a long response in response to this post by you and the browser said that the server was busy and then erased everything I had written. This will be a consolidated version. This first statement by you has slight hints of arrogance and pride in it that are out of character for you.

Actually this touches on the core of the issue but you have it cross threaded to a certain extent. If we assume God exists in our hypothetical argument then there is a suffecient foundation for absolute right and wrong. You said that I mistakenly assumed that. That is not accurate. If we are discussing God then we must assume he exists at some point in order to discuss the implications that his reality introduces. You may believe that the assumption of God is inaccurate and that is your right as it is not a universally proven fact. However you can't honestly say that if God is assumed to exist then that does not inescapably mean that his morality is absolute. That is the core of my point.


My argument is based on the ones made by professional debaters in every debate on morals where a theist is involved. I may have stated it in a little bit of disarray because of the questions and directions taken by your and others counter claimants. I will attempt to be more clear in the future now that you have caught up.

As I said and you exhibited here God must be assumed to exist in order to discuss the issue. However do not assume that I am claiming that is a universally proven fact.

I think you are making a common mistake here. Your are confusing absolute with objective. I happen to believe that God's morality is objective but that issue is open for debate. There really isn't a meaningful debate concerning whether it is absolute. That only requires that whatever produced the moral requirements must have complete sovereignty over all of the subjects of that requirement. Additionally what or who is responsible for the moral system must be capable of bringing all of it's subjects to accountability concerning it. Plus, that morals are independent of the opinion of it's subjects. God meets all those requirements in spades. That means it is absolute without question and is at least objective in effect if not actually objective.




It would be irrelevant. It would have no more meaning or validity than a child thinking his parents are unfair because they said he could not have a pony. The intellectual gap between the child and his parents that renders his protests invalid is infinitely more substantial between us and the Lord.

God is. Only the Bible demonstrates God's sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, and his perfect benevolence etc.... If you can match Jesus' absolute perfection then we might reconsider. Plus the fact that if real he knows everything needed to perfectly select the most just action possible.


Why is it that you insist he is restricted to obedience to a moral law he gave to finite creatures. That is no more valid than suggesting that a child may reasonably demand his parents must obey every rule that was required of him. Why are principles not related to God easily understood and accepted without reservation, but if God is involved those same simple principles are now infinitely problematic.


You may arbitrarily label it with a description that has negative connotations if you wish. No label will make the concept any less valid or perfectly reasonable for the reasons I listed above among many others I did not post.

Sorry for leaving you hanging.
Work is a little busy at the moment and is taking up a lot of my time.
I'll get back to you with a more comprehensive reply in a day or two.

 

[1robin]

Sorry for leaving you hanging.
Work is a little busy at the moment and is taking up a lot of my time.
I'll get back to you with a more comprehensive reply in a day or two.

No problem, take your time.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Actually this touches on the core of the issue but you have it cross threaded to a certain extent. If we assume God exists in our hypothetical argument then there is a suffecient foundation for absolute right and wrong. You said that I mistakenly assumed that. That is not accurate. If we are discussing God then we must assume he exists at some point in order to discuss the implications that his reality introduces. You may believe that the assumption of God is inaccurate and that is your right as it is not a universally proven fact. However you can't honestly say that if God is assumed to exist then that does not inescapably mean that his morality is absolute. That is the core of my point.

As far as I can gather absolute morality can be defined as, 'Moral absolutism is an ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them.'
(Source: Moral absolutism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
If you mean something else by that term, then please define it for me so that we can discuss this on the same grounds.
If the above is a correct representation, then I do not see how a god, no matter how omnipotent or omniscient he is, necessitates absolute morality.
Sure, he could enforce his morality, but that is just an argument from power and has nothing to do with the actual absolute right or wrong with the morals he enforces.

As I said and you exhibited here God must be assumed to exist in order to discuss the issue. However do not assume that I am claiming that is a universally proven fact.

Granted.
Let's assume for this part of the discussion that there is, in fact, a god.
I don't mind if we base this god off the god of the bible for convenience.

I think you are making a common mistake here. Your are confusing absolute with objective. I happen to believe that God's morality is objective but that issue is open for debate. There really isn't a meaningful debate concerning whether it is absolute. That only requires that whatever produced the moral requirements must have complete sovereignty over all of the subjects of that requirement. Additionally what or who is responsible for the moral system must be capable of bringing all of it's subjects to accountability concerning it. Plus, that morals are independent of the opinion of it's subjects. God meets all those requirements in spades. That means it is absolute without question and is at least objective in effect if not actually objective.

I'll agree that absolute morality and objective morality are not the same, although they share certain aspects.
But given that absolute morality holds that an action is right or wrong irregardless of context, intention or consequence, I don't see how that gives god absolute morality.

It would be irrelevant. It would have no more meaning or validity than a child thinking his parents are unfair because they said he could not have a pony. The intellectual gap between the child and his parents that renders his protests invalid is infinitely more substantial between us and the Lord.

Your analogy indicates that in the child/parent relationship, the parent is always right, which is certainly not the case.
Even someone with perfect knowledge can still be capricious, evil or egotistical.
This does not in and of itself make them wrong, but I think it validates the possibility that their morality might be.

God is. Only the Bible demonstrates God's sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, and his perfect benevolence etc.... If you can match Jesus' absolute perfection then we might reconsider. Plus the fact that if real he knows everything needed to perfectly select the most just action possible.

It means that he can perfectly select the most just action possible.
That doesn't mean that he will.

Also, the bible is a poor choice for demonstrating the perfect benevolence of god seeing as many of the actions condoned and even commanded there would conflict greatly with what many people consider just.

Why is it that you insist he is restricted to obedience to a moral law he gave to finite creatures. That is no more valid than suggesting that a child may reasonably demand his parents must obey every rule that was required of him. Why are principles not related to God easily understood and accepted without reservation, but if God is involved those same simple principles are now infinitely problematic.

The child will (if his/her parents are worth a damn) get a reasonable explanation for why the child cannot yet ignore those rules.
A child of, say, ten would not be allowed to drive a car like his/her parents, but the same child can, when certain conditions are met, indeed drive a car.
Thus, given these conditions, the child and the parents are subject to the same rules.
The reason this becomes problematic when dealing with god is because it is implicit that we can never become as god, which raises the question of 'why not?'.
But that might be a topic for another time.
My original point still stand though, that even if all of these things are true, god might decide on the wrong morals.
Heck, he might even know that they are wrong.

You may arbitrarily label it with a description that has negative connotations if you wish. No label will make the concept any less valid or perfectly reasonable for the reasons I listed above among many others I did not post.

As explained above, it is indeed possible for even god to have double standards.

 

[1robin]

As far as I can gather absolute morality can be defined as, 'Moral absolutism is an ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them.'

(Source: Moral absolutism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
If you mean something else by that term, then please define it for me so that we can discuss this on the same grounds.
If the above is a correct representation, then I do not see how a god, no matter how omnipotent or omniscient he is, necessitates absolute morality.
Sure, he could enforce his morality, but that is just an argument from power and has nothing to do with the actual absolute right or wrong with the morals he enforces.

That is not exactly what I mean. The Bible or any other religious texts defines it's own terms. A secular definition made a thousand years later may or may not line up with what is meant by a word. First let me say that if God created the universe, natural law, and moral law there is no problem with him determining that some things are or are not lawful. There exists no potentially higher standard and therefore no more lawful source. This gets into objective versus subjective issues that do no matter. If A person eats another person in the case where God exists that is absolutely wrong. He is fully accountable to that God and will pay the price. There exists no higher standard (regardless of power) which he may appeal to. If he does so without God then it is a opinion based judgment call and nothing is absolute or can be.

Granted.
Let's assume for this part of the discussion that there is, in fact, a god.
I don't mind if we base this god off the god of the bible for convenience.

Very well, you would not believe how many times I must over and over again explain in this in a single discussion with most critics.

I'll agree that absolute morality and objective morality are not the same, although they share certain aspects.
But given that absolute morality holds that an action is right or wrong regardless of context, intention or consequence, I don't see how that gives god absolute morality.

Well it is impossible for God not to exist. It is also impossible for a higher level of moral authority to exist. There is no higher court, no place that where morals do not apply, and no judgment outside God. It is final, permanent, and irrevocable. That is the important issue here. I do not understand why the semantics of the issue are at all important. With God his judgments are absolute and universal. That is the crux of the issue. I do not see why some strict application of certain semantic flavors of absolute matter. We all will face the same judge and be judged by the same standard. This gets slightly confusing with the Levitical law but let's confine this to the 99.9% of human history where there is no confusion.

Your analogy indicates that in the child/parent relationship, the parent is always right, which is certainly not the case.

That is not the part of the symbolism or parable I was using it for. In the case that God exists then he would be right and so that is not an issue.

Even someone with perfect knowledge can still be capricious, evil or egotistical.
This does not in and of itself make them wrong, but I think it validates the possibility that their morality might be.

You are bringing up a side issue that does have merit but will only confuse this one. It is possible that there could be a God but that that God may be evil. However since there exists no higher standard by which to determine that it is a irresolvable issue. The God we are discussing has demonstrated (so far) that he always acts consistently with his revealed nature, an that that nature reflects what we consider benevolent actions in almost all cases and even in the ones that do not we can't determine they are malevolent. There are just a few that we can make no determination concerning. The other 99% of the time they are easily recognized benevolent actions. As I stated this is a side issue that I would save until this one is resolved.

It means that he can perfectly select the most just action possible.
That doesn't mean that he will.

He has demonstrated that within the context of his purpose and his self-revelation he has acted consistently benevolent. It is easy to forget that God is as absolute in his judgment of evil as he is loving. The issue concerns which one he selects at which moment to actualize. That is a subject that since we have a microscopic amount of the data he has at his disposal in order to make the decision is a pointless exercise. One example would be when in one of the rare occasion he told Saul to wipe out an entire completely corrupt city, Saul thought he knew better than God and so spared the King and Queen. When Nathan heard about this he chopped of the king's head and the queen escaped. She was pregnant and her son grew up to be the second in charge of Persia. He at one point got the King to issue an order to kill all the Jews in 4/5 of the civilized world. If God hadn't stopped it would have happened. Another would be Abraham thinking he knew better than God and having a child before God gave him the one he promised. The entire 4000 year history of Jew against Arab violence is a direct result. You can't in most cases even attempt to judge God's decisions. It is like walking into the jury box on the last day of the trial, you do not have a fraction of the info you need to decide the issue.

Also, the bible is a poor choice for demonstrating the perfect benevolence of god seeing as many of the actions condoned and even commanded there would conflict greatly with what many people consider just.

This is a far more complicated issue than you imply. As I stated above there was far more at stake than what the critic realizes and would require a long time to explain. It can never be fully understood exactly why he did what he did but there are fully justified reasons if you grant his existence and purpose.

The child will (if his/her parents are worth a damn) get a reasonable explanation for why the child cannot yet ignore those rules.

Well the difference in intellectual level being infinite in Gods case and very finite in a families case, combined with the scope of issues involved makes what is partially possible with one example impossible with the other. My parents must have said because we said so about a million times. Parables are strictly limited things. If one is given not every single dynamic that exists in it can be used to explain what it is compared to. For example the parable of the weeds or sower is an example. It has strict confines where it applies. I had a guy import every single thing true about agriculture into the discussion because of them and that can't be done. I meant that example to only illustrate that the subject is many times not equipped to understand the reasons why morals are required.

A child of, say, ten would not be allowed to drive a car like his/her parents, but the same child can, when certain conditions are met, indeed drive a car.
Thus, given these conditions, the child and the parents are subject to the same rules. The reason this becomes problematic when dealing with god is because it is implicit that we can never become as god, which raises the question of 'why not?'.
But that might be a topic for another time.

I do not find the fact that we can't become like God problematical at all. For one we do not posses fore knowledge and do not even have the capacity to store infinite knowledge, and we sure as heck are not omnipotent.

My original point still stand though, that even if all of these things are true, god might decide on the wrong morals.
Heck, he might even know that they are wrong.

There is no standard or source for morality that can show God chose the wrong morals. The only thing we can do is examine if his morals LOOSLY line up with what perceive as moral and that he is consistent with his self revelation.

As explained above, it is indeed possible for even god to have double standards.

Maybe you can show a possible example of this. I do not know what it is you are trying to say. If you mean he may require certain moral actions for himself and a different one for us. I do not see why that is anything but perfectly logical. If not I need an explanation. I just realized why it is that I fell we have begun to accomplish little compared to where we started. My core argument is that morality with God has far more sure foundation than without him. I think we are in an area that does not even address that original concept. I think instead of comparing the two you have begun to simply point out possible imperfections with God’s morality. Even if they are all true (that’s a big if) they are still far more reliable and founded on solid ground than what we can produce without him.

 

[work in progress]

This conversation is getting a little too concentrated on evolutionary principles. When you submit God as an explanation it is not usually based on bias, even though that is definitely the case at times. In this case it is not. It is a logical deduction that a common designer would produce many similarities. That is not really the point anyway. I think you are trying to say that commonality in design is proof that God does not exist. That just doesn't work.

No, I never said that what's called Convergent Evolution is proof that God doesn't exist. The point is that common features are not evidence for common design, since the environment apparently plays such a large role in favouring the development of similar traits among species that do not have close common ancestors, but share similar environments and have developed similar physical features for dealing with the challenges they face.

There is nothing in nature that is evidence against God. God is at least as good of an explanation for what we see as anything else that may be considered. In fact the prolific existence of extremely complex order and information we see is far more consistent with an intelligent designer that random chance. I think we are getting off subject a bit but if you wish to discuss whether nature suggests a God exists or not, that is fine with me.

As you have stated I think Psychology is a pseudoscience and place no confidence in anything they claim but that is not relevant here. I did not say God helped me stop cussing. I said not only did God instantly take away any desire I had to cuss, he also made cussing almost painfull for me to hear. Psychology has no explanation for this.

Actually you have dismissed all forms of scientific study of the brain and human behaviour, from developmental psychology to neuroscience. So, this looks like you'll consider science until it starts examining the human mind, because the traditional understanding of man in the western tradition (Substance Dualism) that we have an incorporeal, immaterial mind that is separate from, but somehow able to control the actions of a physical body, is completely shredded by the growing body of knowledge of how the brain functions and how it generates ALL of our mental experiences, including the feeling of having a unified, unchanging mind. The evidence drawn from a number of different experimenters correlating brain imaging with mental activity, shows consistently that brain activity comes first -- not the mental activity or certainly the awareness of the mental effort. Same thing goes for unity of mind -- even split-brain patients who have the cortex divided into separate hemispheres that act separately, still think they have unity of mind....and will even conflate alibis to explain their lack of ability to coordinate the two hemispheres. And these and many other results of modern brain research presents problems for the traditional understandings of how the mind works that many refuse to contemplate and just shut it out entirely.

When you observe people who underwent a radical, obvious, and permanent drastic change in actual character not just behavior. People like Johny Cash or George Foreman who went from thugs and rebels to almost saint like behavior, who went from hating God to loving, and evil to self sacrifice defy any psychological explanation. Not to mention that they were not even exposed to any concealing at the time and claim to have had a radical, unique, and profound experience with God that instantly and permanently changed their core character. Attempts to provide other and far more illogical explanations because the most likely explanation, and the one the people claim themselves, has inconvenient implications, hints at desperation.

You cited two examples I am already familiar with. Any boxing fans old enough to remember when George Foreman first came up and watched his ring career, finds it a little hard to swallow his claims of having an NDE (it was not verified by his trainers or doctors) on the night after the Jimmy Young Fight, it was and always has been a story that he might believe himself, but cannot prove to anyone else. George Foreman was not Mike Tyson! There were boxing fans who didn't like him...some may have thought he was arrogant and bitter because he didn't get the attention Ali received...but he was not a drug addict, his name was never in the news for assaulting women or getting in fights....it looks more like his experience after the Jimmy Young Fight, when he decided to retire from boxing for a long spell, was just part of a late maturing process that many celebrities go through, who rise to stardom at an early age and are constantly surrounded by lackies telling them how great they are....and then being abandoned by that same crowd when things go bad. Foreman's conversion looks like a boy becoming a man and realizing that being a star is not what is really important in life. I'm glad he was one of the few celebrities to develop this sense of maturity, but there have been others who have gone through a similar process that have not been directly connected with religion.

Johnny Cash did not adopt anything resembling 'saint-like' behaviour from religion. He came from a deeply religious background, and through all of his bouts of alcoholism and drug abuse - which continued throughout his life btw - they didn't stop because of his professions of faith! His life was typical of many serious addicts who spend their lives dealing with addiction and never feel completely cured. And, for what it's worth - even though Alcoholics Anonymous leans heavily on Christian belief for justification, the standard position of AA is that alcoholism is an illness and that an alcoholic is never cured. They never tell people all you got to do is confess to Jesus and you're healed, and that's what I find objectionable about the approach you presented about a more minor issue like swearing! You would make it seem that a religious conversion is all that's needed to change someone's behaviour...and that is not only totally wrong, it is also dangerously harmful to any who do the religious conversion and then start backsliding into drug or alcohol abuse. I might add that this conversion ideology is also what makes these so called "Gay Reparative Therapy" organizations so damaging. It's not exactly an addiction issue, but if someone has strong homosexual tendencies (especially male homosexuals), telling young gays who may come from Christian fundamentalist families and share these beliefs, will often end up suicidal after the immediate rush of some highly emotional religious ritual is over and they go back to their gay thoughts again. It's time for a more adult, practical approach to how the mind actually works!

I think you are slightly confused here. If I claim that God created the moon out of a feather 8000 years ago and that is shown to be false that has no effect on God or the Bible. It only matters if they show that a specific claim in the Bible is actually inaccurate. That has not happened. Proving something someone dreamed up and attributed to God was wrong is no indictment against God or the Bible. There is no scientific claim in the Bible that has ever been shown false. In fact most of the scientific claims in the Bible could not have been known at the time they were recorded yet they are all perfectly true and consistent with modern scientific conclusions.

It depends on how literalistic you want to interpret the Bible! I would say that Biblical cosmology of a flat, circular Earth with a "firmament" above - a ceiling of some sorts, with stars being mere lights hung from it, and the heavens where God and the angels live, being above that firmament....and of course the Sun, Moon and planets all moving through the night sky....would nail the door on any claim that the Bible could be used as a science textbook; but even the most rigidly fundamentalist are willing to concede a few obvious things as allegorical: references to the firmament, the flat earth, the sun rising and falling....the difference between a fundamentalist and a progressive appears to be more where they draw the line between literal and allegorical, than it is a real distinction. It's just a matter of degrees.

 

[work in progress]

I believe your time frame is accurate but for very different reasons, and I believe it will be Armageddon not extension that is coming. Every single prediction that the Bible gives concerning the end times has either happened or is easily seen to be currently in the making especially concerning middle eastern politics. I do of course KNOW exactly when but soon seems to be obvious, even the temple's reconstruction that will immediately precede the end has a current fund gathering effort under way.

Yes, I've heard of that crazy Temple Movement! And, for anyone not familiar, there is a bizarre and extremely volatile mixing of Christian Zionism and Orthodox Judaism going on here -- as a small radical group of Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem want to tear down the Al Aqsa Mosque and build a new temple on the spot. There are Christian zionists - mostly in America, who are contributing money and there are at least a couple of ranchers who are trying to breed that "perfect red heifer" which will be needed to inaugurate sacrifices at the temple once it is constructed. This whole crazy movement is not any example of prophecy, but is just another example of pushing the hand of fate, as the events preceding an attempt to build the temple will be much more severe and catastrophic than what happened in the similar example where Hindus demolished a mosque in India to rebuild a Hindu temple. I could believe this course of events could precipitate nuclear war and possible extinction...but this is not what I am talking about. I am referring to present day trends that are pushing towards human extinction in a manner of generations (even without nuclear war), whereas the Temple Movement is crazed zealots deliberately pulling the trigger! Maybe when the bombs start going off, the Christian zionists in Texas will gather on their rooftops awaiting the 2nd Coming when they hear of nuclear war in the M.E.. But, just like the Millerites waited on their rooftops back in 1844 all night for Jesus to come riding in on a white horse, all we will get is apocalypse and no rapture!

Your claims about the bad influence technological development has had whether right or wrong are pretty much incidental to me. However it does add to my position that the almost obsessive faith and hope derived from a belief in humanities future is a strange and insufficient reason for actual hope. My world view renders the issue far less important than those without it.

The reason why I brought it up is that everyone, including atheists, have to develop a worldview - if they are curious enough to do the work and think about life and everything etc.. Maybe some are not! But, what has surprised me as I have learned about the rarely discussed downside of technology and the quest for technological solutions, is that those who claim to be the most rational, and those who value reason and evidence the most, also have the biggest blindspot to the futility of solving every environmental problem with a new technology or counter-technology.

In a way, I'm giving you an assist, because where you will find something similar to religious faith and unsubstantiated beliefs among the majority of atheists influenced by standard humanist thinking is that modern secular humanism has become tied at the hip with the promise of scientific learning and new technology turning the planet into a garden of eden through human invention, not divine intervention. What very few are willing to do is to take a hard look at the reality of the situation we are now in: most of the essential non-renewable resources that modern civilization depends on, are running out in the next 10 to 50 years based on present economic trends. The Earth is badly degraded, arable land is declining, and yet population will reach at least 9 billion by mid-century, if the system doesn't start breaking down prior to that point and causing widespread famine and starvation first. Even at best, the most we can do with the future is to unwind the industrial revolution and modern capitalism, and go back to living sustainably while using few non-renewables. But, if empires are violent on their way up, the violence, chaos and anarchy on the way down could be even worse! It may sound like alarmism, but I think people getting hit with unexpected hardship and deprivation react more violently when they don't understand what's wrong or what to do, than if they are at least somewhat aware. That's what I'm thinking as I watch pictures of riots coming over the news right now from Greece and Spain. Most of those people did not expect to lose their jobs and their pensions to a handful of bankers with controlling economic power. If they did see this coming, maybe they would have made plans instead of expecting that everything would go back to normal. And since capitalist economies are crashing around the world because we are getting close to the limits imposed by the natural environment on human consumption, I expect the same things and gradually worse things to be coming our way over the years and decades to come. As I said previously, I am not presenting a naturalistic vision to inspire people to leave whatever religion they follow right now. Those naturalists like the so called new atheists - who make a big deal about de-converting people, seem to have a hard time facing reality because the real world is throwing a curveball at any hopeful secular visions of the future.

On a related note, when this sort of faith in progress reaches absurd proportions, we get something like Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near- where he promises something that looks eerily close to a secular version of The Rapture, if we can stay alive for the next 30 years, we will arrive at a place where have "mind uploading" and after 2045 we reach a point where we are "waking up the universe." If this isn't religion, I don't know what is! If I cared to get in an argument with one of Kurzweil's groupies I'd ask how even if would become possible to upload every mental experience in our brains, that would be something implied as being a transfer of consciousness, rather than a complex computer simulation of our minds....but, enough of that, it all serves as an example of what happens to secular-minded people living in fear of the real future, start letting their fantasies about technology run amok!

 

[1robin]

No, I never said that what's called

Convergent Evolution is proof that God doesn't exist. The point is that common features are not evidence for common design, since the environment apparently plays such a large role in favoring the development of similar traits among species that do not have close common ancestors, but share similar environments and have developed similar physical features for dealing with the challenges they face.

Something has gotten out of sequence in our posts, but I am too lazy to go back and find out what. I made this post at what seems like a while back. Anyway I will just respond to whatever I see. My point was that common features are far more suggestive of a designer than a random process even with bottle necks of survivability. Like I said we are getting far too much into evolution where I am less competent and away from theology where I am more so.

Actually you have dismissed all forms of scientific study of the brain and human behavior, from developmental psychology to neuroscience. So, this looks like you'll consider science until it starts examining the human mind, because the traditional understanding of man in the western tradition (Substance Dualism) that we have an incorporeal, immaterial mind that is separate from, but somehow able to control the actions of a physical body, is completely shredded by the growing body of knowledge of how the brain functions and how it generates ALL of our mental experiences, including the feeling of having a unified, unchanging mind. The evidence drawn from a number of different experimenters correlating brain imaging with mental activity, shows consistently that brain activity comes first -- not the mental activity or certainly the awareness of the mental effort. Same thing goes for unity of mind -- even split-brain patients who have the cortex divided into separate hemispheres that act separately, still think they have unity of mind....and will even conflate alibis to explain their lack of ability to coordinate the two hemispheres. And these and many other results of modern brain research presents problems for the traditional understandings of how the mind works that many refuse to contemplate and just shut it out entirely.

The mind is a fascinating subject and maybe one day it will be well understood. At this time it is a swirl of fact, faith, and guesses. I stick to things that have actual laws behind them, are well known, philisophically consistent, theologically consistent, or meet the standards of the historical method. Cause and effect, thermodynamics, angular momentum, and the conservation of energy are concrete and absolute things that can be obviously proven. I can agree with them within the context of natural law. We still have trouble making simple cars that work for long periods and yet you are assuming that we know how the most complicated arrangement of matter in the universe operates. No one that reads Freud can possibly think Psychology is a field of certainty. I am very skeptical of the subject and have never heard anything in it that is an argument against God. I have heard many that are arguments for God, but value neither. There is plenty of science left without this vague field.

You cited two examples I am already familiar with. Any boxing fans old enough to remember when George Foreman first came up and watched his ring career, finds it a little hard to swallow his claims of having an NDE (it was not verified by his trainers or doctors) on the night after the Jimmy Young Fight, it was and always has been a story that he might believe himself, but cannot prove to anyone else. George Foreman was not Mike Tyson! There were boxing fans who didn't like him...some may have thought he was arrogant and bitter because he didn't get the attention Ali received...but he was not a drug addict, his name was never in the news for assaulting women or getting in fights....it looks more like his experience after the Jimmy Young Fight, when he decided to retire from boxing for a long spell, was just part of a late maturing process that many celebrities go through, who rise to stardom at an early age and are constantly surrounded by lackies telling them how great they are....and then being abandoned by that same crowd when things go bad. Foreman's conversion looks like a boy becoming a man and realizing that being a star is not what is really important in life. I'm glad he was one of the few celebrities to develop this sense of maturity, but there have been others who have gone through a similar process that have not been directly connected with religion.

So the greatest expert on George Forman in history says this happened and yet you dismiss it. The issue was not the NDE. His trainers did say he appeared to die (and they had no access to his experience) and then claimed he was yelling he loved Jesus when he awoke. The issue was that he was a complete self-admitted and easily verified street thug at one point and a Teddy Bear the next. He went from gang fights and robbery to opening a Gym for wayward youth. If you don't see the significance in that transformation you do not want to.

Johnny Cash did not adopt anything resembling 'saint-like' behavior from religion. He came from a deeply religious background, and through all of his bouts of alcoholism and drug abuse - which continued throughout his life btw.

Even though it does happen regularly it is not common that a person goes from complete debauchery to perfection overnight. A graph of his life would look like a V. He was going down met God and turned around. It is more of his mannerisms that are interesting to me. In a relatively short span of time he went from album covers of shooting Birds and being in court for killing a entire endangered species, for which he replied "I don't give a **** about your buzzards" into a deeply religious man. You can change a few habits you can't become a completely new person without Christ. He did. I can post far more and numerous and even far more extreme instantaneous examples of this forever but if you will simply dismiss them with pseudo psychology there is not much point. You realize that if even 50% of those that claim to be, are actually Christians, you would literally have to invent billions of stories to get out of what that implies. That is not true with any other religion's intellectual agreements with a theological concept. True Christians claim to have all had a supernatural experience with Jesus.

It depends on how literalistic you want to interpret the Bible! I would say that Biblical cosmology of a flat, circular Earth with a "firmament" above - a ceiling of some sorts, with stars being mere lights hung from it, and the heavens where God and the angels live, being above that firmament....and of course the Sun, Moon and planets all moving through the night sky....would nail the door on any claim that the Bible could be used as a science textbook;

Ok now you are back in my wheel house. What you claim concerning the shape of the Earth is in no way Biblically accurate. The Hebrews had a word for ball but not sphere. They very rarely used the word for ball when describing large things or actually anything. It can easily be seen that since the circle is not from a given point that it is easily understood to mean a curved horizon from any point observed. It actually says that in other verses but won't go get them all unless it is necessary. That being said then if at any point on Earth the horizon is a curve we are left with an inescapable sphere.
Firmament is too complicated to address here. I do not see any problem with the concept unless a certain arbitrary extremely literal interpretation is taken in some verses.

but even the most rigidly fundamentalist are willing to concede a few obvious things as allegorical: references to the firmament, the flat earth, the sun rising and falling....the difference between a fundamentalist and a progressive appears to be more where they draw the line between literal and allegorical, than it is a real distinction. It's just a matter of degrees.

I usually shy away from anything that transpired before recorded history. Not because it is false but that it can't be verified by anything out side it's self. I also wonder that since 5% of the text has known errors in the Bible, then it is impossible to know if the oral tradition contained any, how much, or about what. Things back that far also seem to have no clear indication whether they are literal or symbolic. ie...the Flood, six days, what fruit if any was actually eaten. I had in mind more along the lines beginning with the Levitical laws. I am not saying anything is incorrect but it is hard to nail even what is claimed perfectly.

 

[work in progress]

The mind is a fascinating subject and maybe one day it will be well understood. At this time it is a swirl of fact, faith, and guesses.

No it isn't! Faith and guesses don't really have a place in any serious discussion of the mind. Mental experiences can be correlated with brain activity, and the understanding of how the brain creates its sense of mind and unified, permanent personal identity, is becoming more clearly understood as the years go on.

I can agree with them within the context of natural law.

For the record, natural law theology was borrowed from Aristotle by Christian theologians...it did not originate from Christianity or Judaism, and it is not dependent on the existence of God. In Aristotle's presentation, natural law is understood in the context of what he called cultivating the virtues. And for what it's worth, Aristotle's method of improving one's behaviour and conduct by thinking before taking action on impulse, and focusing on the virtues until they become ingrained, looks remarkably similar to the approach a cognitive therapist might take when trying to teach an addict how to shift patterns leading to addiction towards other healthier alternatives. Point being that even a Christian therapist who's honest, has to admit that someone professing a born again experience does not demonstrate permanent change; and they will downplay the rigorous mental effort necessary to make real change happen, but the born again addict has to do the same things as the non-religious addict seeking to end their drug or alcohol problems.

So the greatest expert on George Forman in history says this happened and yet you dismiss it. The issue was not the NDE. His trainers did say he appeared to die (and they had no access to his experience) and then claimed he was yelling he loved Jesus when he awoke. The issue was that he was a complete self-admitted and easily verified street thug at one point and a Teddy Bear the next. He went from gang fights and robbery to opening a Gym for wayward youth. If you don't see the significance in that transformation you do not want to.

I chose to speak from my own recollections about George Foreman and Johnny Cash, because as I later discovered, Foreman's story that's accessible with a search engine, is cluttered with evangelical and NDE propaganda now. I couldn't find one in-depth account dealing specifically with his life after death claims that was not from an NDE sight or an obvious fundamentalist site with an agenda! The only serious accounts taken on his wikipedia page or boxing sources just mention his claim and go no further. At the time, there was no one in Foreman's corner who corroborated the story. The ringside doctor said he was running a fever and dehydrated, but no one even corroborated the story that he blacked out afterwards in the dressing room, and they didn't hear about his NDE until later, when they discovered that he decided to quit boxing and they were all out of a job. But, George Foreman must have been a pretty young street thug! He started boxing amateur at age 16, after he dropped out of high school. There was a story years ago, that he beat up his grade school principle when he was 11 in grade 6, but that may also be an urban legend.

And, let's not forget that in his transformation, he declared that boxing was not in keeping with being a Christian...but 10 years later, likely for financial reasons, he was on his way to getting a heavyweight title again. I'm not saying that he wasn't a better man than he was before, but his transformation wasn't greater than a lot of people go through, who've had a troubled youth. I suspect what has happened over the years is that there has been too much mythologizing from the heavyweight evangelical leaders like Robert Schuller and Pat Robertson, who used Foreman for their own personal advantage!

Ok now you are back in my wheel house. What you claim concerning the shape of the Earth is in no way Biblically accurate. The Hebrews had a word for ball but not sphere.

I have no idea what Hebrew has, but according to sources Aren't balls spherical? Anyway, I was looking for a site that pointed out that they have a word for sphere if Isaiah wanted to use it:

What Does the Bible Really Say?

Dedicated believers often say that the word “circle” could actually mean “sphere,” since both are round, but they ignore Isaiah’s use of a different word in another verse where he speaks of a “ball:

He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL (duwr) into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord’s house. (Isaiah 22:18)
​

The Hebrew word used in scripture for “circle” in Isaiah 40:22 is chuwg. If the author meant to imply that “circle of the earth” indicated that the earth was a sphere, it would have made more sense to use the Hebrew word for “ball,” which is duwr. The word “chuwg” more likely refers to a flat, circular earth.
Scientific Accuracy and “Circular” ReasoningSkeptical Monkey | Skeptical Monkey

​

 

[jarofthoughts]

That is not exactly what I mean. The Bible or any other religious texts defines it's own terms. A secular definition made a thousand years later may or may not line up with what is meant by a word. First let me say that if God created the universe, natural law, and moral law there is no problem with him determining that some things are or are not lawful. There exists no potentially higher standard and therefore no more lawful source.

Granted, but you do realize that with that reasoning the moment someone proves something in the bible to be wrong, the whole house of cards falls down?
I'm not saying your point isn't relevant seeing as we agreed for the purpose of this discussion to take the view that the bible and the biblical god is true and real.

This gets into objective versus subjective issues that do no matter.

Granted.
Just out of curiosity, do you accept that objective morality does not exist?

There exists no higher standard (regardless of power) which he may appeal to.

Here you seem to deviate from the original terms of the discussion.
Either god is all-powerful or he is not.
And if he is not, then that opens the possibility that someone might become more powerful than god.
Which opens up a whole can of worms that would ruin your other arguments.
So you either have to accept that his higher authority derives from his complete power, or that there might be a higher power which would/could become a higher authority as a result.

If he does so without God then it is a opinion based judgment call and nothing is absolute or can be.

Granted.
The decision might still be right, or wrong, though, depending on the circumstances.

Well it is impossible for God not to exist.

We have for the purpose of this discussion about absolute morals decided that he does.
If you meant that as a separate argument, detached from our discussion, then we have a completely different ballgame ahead of us.

It is also impossible for a higher level of moral authority to exist. There is no higher court, no place that where morals do not apply, and no judgment outside God. It is final, permanent, and irrevocable.

If god is all-powerful and all-knowing.

That is the important issue here.

Not if god is lying.
The point I was trying to make was that even if god HAS access to the knowledge of absolute right and wrong, doesn't mean that he will tell anyone.

I do not understand why the semantics of the issue are at all important.

When using terms in a discussion such as this I find it is vital to at least try to agree upon what those terms mean.

With God his judgments are absolute and universal. That is the crux of the issue. I do not see why some strict application of certain semantic flavors of absolute matter. We all will face the same judge and be judged by the same standard.

Sure, but he might still be lying to us.

This gets slightly confusing with the Levitical law but let's confine this to the 99.9% of human history where there is no confusion.

As I hope you are well aware of, the bible is full of contradiction and confusing passages.
But let's not get into that right now.

That is not the part of the symbolism or parable I was using it for. In the case that God exists then he would be right and so that is not an issue.

Again, for the purpose of this discussion, granted.
And again, that doesn't mean that he will actually tell us.
As mentioned, he might be evil and capricious, and he might lie to us on purpose.

You are bringing up a side issue that does have merit but will only confuse this one. It is possible that there could be a God but that that God may be evil. However since there exists no higher standard by which to determine that it is a irresolvable issue.

But it does open up the possibility that he might have been lying to all the prophets.

The God we are discussing has demonstrated (so far) that he always acts consistently with his revealed nature, an that that nature reflects what we consider benevolent actions in almost all cases and even in the ones that do not we can't determine they are malevolent. There are just a few that we can make no determination concerning. The other 99% of the time they are easily recognized benevolent actions.

Actually, that is a non sequitur.
Either all of his actions are indeterminable, or there exists a standard from which we can judge some actions as good and others as evil.
Which means that there is a separate standard from which we can judge god, and therefore his morals would not be absolute.

It is easy to forget that God is as absolute in his judgment of evil as he is loving.

Not that that is a part of the issue we're discussing, but you are aware that the Problem of Evil completely destroys any god that is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving at the same time?

The issue concerns which one he selects at which moment to actualize. That is a subject that since we have a microscopic amount of the data he has at his disposal in order to make the decision is a pointless exercise. One example would be when... ZIPPED ...order to kill all the Jews in 4/5 of the civilized world. If God hadn't stopped it would have happened. It is like walking into the jury box on the last day of the trial, you do not have a fraction of the info you need to decide the issue.

No, but since he is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving, he could have easily created a universe without suffering.

This is a far more complicated issue than you imply. As I stated above there was far more at stake than what the critic realizes and would require a long time to explain. It can never be fully understood exactly why he did what he did but there are fully justified reasons if you grant his existence and purpose.

Since it seems we have sidetracked somewhat from the original topic, I have to disagree here.

My parents must have said because we said so about a million times.

Well, I always offer an explanation to my pupils.
It is not only more fair, but I also find that it is more effective.

Parables are strictly limited things.

But they should enhance the understanding of the topic or point at hand.

I meant that example to only illustrate that the subject is many times not equipped to understand the reasons why morals are required.

But in the case of god it is assumed that the subject not only does not understand, but that the subject can never understand.
Now, for a being that is supposedly all-powerful, why would that be a problem?

I do not find the fact that we can't become like God problematical at all.

Well, I do.

For one we do not posses fore knowledge and do not even have the capacity to store infinite knowledge, and we sure as heck are not omnipotent.

But he is supposed to be omnipotent.
Which means that he could easily grant us the abilities to understand.
Now, why would he not do that then?

There is no standard or source for morality that can show God chose the wrong morals. The only thing we can do is examine if his morals LOOSLY line up with what perceive as moral and that he is consistent with his self revelation.

And yet, in the bible he shows regret (to Noah after the flood).
Which means that he must have transgressed against some moral principle or another.

Maybe you can show a possible example of this. I do not know what it is you are trying to say. If you mean he may require certain moral actions for himself and a different one for us. I do not see why that is anything but perfectly logical. If not I need an explanation.

The point is that even being all-powerful and all-knowing, and therefore knowing full well what is right and what is wrong, god could choose not to do what is right, or he could lie about it.

I just realized why it is that I fell we have begun to accomplish little compared to where we started. My core argument is that morality with God has far more sure foundation than without him. I think we are in an area that does not even address that original concept. I think instead of comparing the two you have begun to simply point out possible imperfections with God’s morality. Even if they are all true (that’s a big if) they are still far more reliable and founded on solid ground than what we can produce without him.

If that's the direction we're headed, then we're really back at square one.
There is no reason to think that a god or gods exist, and therefore we cannot even speculate as to its/their abilities, morals or other factors regarding it/them.

 

[1robin]

Granted, but you do realize that with that reasoning the moment someone proves something in the bible to be wrong, the whole house of cards falls down?
I'm not saying your point isn't relevant seeing as we agreed for the purpose of this discussion to take the view that the bible and the biblical god is true and real.

I didn't follow that. The Bible is between 99.5% and 95% accurate. It does have scribal errors and two passages that can't be shown to be authentic. That does not make it false in the other 95%. The only thing guaranteed is that the original revelation would be perfect, not it's copies. It is still by far and away the most accurate and attested work in ancient history. It is almost miraculous in it's reliability but not perfect.

Granted.
Just out of curiosity, do you accept that objective morality does not exist?

That depends how rigorous your definition of Objective is. I have concluded it is completely irrelevant and usually do not bother discussing it deeply.

Here you seem to deviate from the original terms of the discussion.
Either god is all-powerful or he is not.
And if he is not, then that opens the possibility that someone might become more powerful than god.
Which opens up a whole can of worms that would ruin your other arguments.
So you either have to accept that his higher authority derives from his complete power, or that there might be a higher power which would/could become a higher authority as a result.

I was saying his moral requirements are absolute independently of how powerful he is. I was not saying he is less that all powerful. Even if he never brought us to judgment by the exercise of his power it is just as unjust an action.

Granted.
The decision might still be right, or wrong, though, depending on the circumstances.

Actually without God there is no grounds by which to declare anything actually right or wrong. There would exist no standard beyond opinion or preference. It couldn't possibly be actually right because right has no absolute meaning without God.

We have for the purpose of this discussion about absolute morals decided that he does.
If you meant that as a separate argument, detached from our discussion, then we have a completely different ballgame ahead of us.

Yes in our context he exists. I will add that many philosophers say it is actually impossible that he does not exist but I do not agree with that strongly enough to use it as an argument.

If god is all-powerful and all-knowing.

Those are the characteristics of the God we are discussing.

Not if god is lying.
The point I was trying to make was that even if god HAS access to the knowledge of absolute right and wrong, doesn't mean that he will tell anyone.

Again the God we are discussing makes this point irrelevant. Also God determines what is right or wrong. It is not the case that he has access to it, he is it.

When using terms in a discussion such as this I find it is vital to at least try to agree upon what those terms mean.

I meant that God's morality is absolute no matter what it is called. I find that critics appeal to the semantics of objective and subjective definitions used as diversions because they have no actuall counter to the issue it's self.

Sure, but he might still be lying to us.

That is not possible with the God we are discussing. If you assume a God that lies we are no longer discussing the Biblical God.

As I hope you are well aware of, the bible is full of contradiction and confusing passages.
But let's not get into that right now.

Confusing at times yes, contradictory never. There are some that have apparent contradiction but with a little study I have yet to see one that is not easily harmonized.

Again, for the purpose of this discussion, granted.
And again, that doesn't mean that he will actually tell us.
As mentioned, he might be evil and capricious, and he might lie to us on purpose.

Then that would be a different God.

But it does open up the possibility that he might have been lying to all the prophets.

When we assume God then which God. If the Biblical God then this is not the case.

Actually, that is a non sequitur.
Either all of his actions are indeterminable, or there exists a standard from which we can judge some actions as good and others as evil.
Which means that there is a separate standard from which we can judge god, and therefore his morals would not be absolute.

If God exists and says that murder is evil and we will be accountable for it then how would this additional info change that. It would be impossible for us to determine if a God was lying or evil and so is not worth a discussion. It would no longer be the God we are discussing anyway.

Not that that is a part of the issue we're discussing, but you are aware that the Problem of Evil completely destroys any god that is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving at the same time?

That is not the case but is a common mistake. Those characteristics you mention are not indicative of will. All powerful is capability, all knowing is infinite knowledge, all loving is an astetic attitude. Will is a completely different issue. You also must realize that his intention and purpose are not to straighten out the broken world but to save people out of it. The world rejected God and he will not redeem it as a whole. He however did provide a rectification for every individual in it that will accept their failure. It has also been argued that evil is necessary in that it reveals the reality of the consequences of our decision. That is why tragedy always produces a renewed desire for God. Look at church attendance post 9/11 or the revivals that swept through armies at war. If sin did not destroy then who would believe it was bad. He also can't grant free will without allowing us to choose to do evil. This subject is a debate unto its self and I could add on here indefinitely.

No, but since he is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving, he could have easily created a universe without suffering.

Once again you are discounting will and purpose. True love does not exist without free will. Free will does not exists without the ability to choose evil.

Since it seems we have sidetracked somewhat from the original topic, I have to disagree here.

If you will choose either the Flood, destruction of Canaanites, or of the Amalekites I will explain.

Well, I always offer an explanation to my pupils.
It is not only more fair, but I also find that it is more effective.

You are attempting to draw parallels between the disparity of intelligence in Humans of different ages and between God and us. That can't be done in most cases and my parable was not designed to show how vast the gap is just that it exists. Would Abraham have understood quantum physics? Did Moses need to understand hydraulics? Can what is in an infinite mind be comprehended by the finite? We have more than necessary as well as more than we will ever understand.

But they should enhance the understanding of the topic or point at hand.

But only in a restricted capacity. Farming dynamics don't all apply to the parable of the sower.

But in the case of god it is assumed that the subject not only does not understand, but that the subject can never understand.
Now, for a being that is supposedly all-powerful, why would that be a problem?

You keep discounting purpose. Our level of knowledge is consistent with his purpose for us. Job tried this "I want to know everything" line of reasoning I would suggest a review of God's response to him.

Well, I do.

Why?

But he is supposed to be omnipotent.
Which means that he could easily grant us the abilities to understand.
Now, why would he not do that then?

I am capable of blowing up a school bus. It is not my will to do so. Capability does not imply will.

And yet, in the bible he shows regret (to Noah after the flood).
Which means that he must have transgressed against some moral principle or another.

Where? Are you referring to when he said he repented that he ever made man?

The point is that even being all-powerful and all-knowing, and therefore knowing full well what is right and what is wrong, god could choose not to do what is right, or he could lie about it.

Actually he could but then that would be a different God than what is in the Bible.

If that's the direction we're headed, then we're really back at square one.
There is no reason to think that a god or gods exist, and therefore we cannot even speculate as to its/their abilities, morals or other factors regarding it/them.

It is a very illogical statement to suggest that what one third of the human population believes in and what the most scrutinized and cherished book on Earth argues for has no evidence. In fact the greatest experts in human history on evidence and testimony say the opposite. Some of the most intelligent and thorough scientists who ever lived were Christians. I regard that statement as grounded on an emotional precommitment not on evidence.

 

[AdityaMookerjee]

"Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941), known as Richard Dawkins, is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford,[1] and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.[2]
Dawkins came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which popularised the gene-centered view of evolution and introduced the term meme. In 1982 he introduced an influential concept into evolutionary biology, presented in his book The Extended Phenotype, that the phenotypic effects of a gene are not necessarily limited to an organism's body, but can stretch far into the environment, including the bodies of other organisms."


Source: Wikipedia

It's obvious that he is a scientist, even to a person who doesn't know science. Why do you want to discuss the gentleman when he perhaps won't be interested in your question, and not reading your post?