Scientific evidence / arguments for God

[ArtieE]

This is apparently futile and pointless. I have went way out of the way to say only if the God exists and even then that can mean that their morality is true but incompatible with our moral determinations. IOW he can be "evil" to me and you but is still a more solid foundation than arbitrary opinion.

I see. People attribute their morals to their gods and since they say a god is behind those morals instead of themselves that provides a more solid foundation than arbitrary opinion. Which is why religion evolved.

In principle yes. Given the radical difference in the evidence for God versus Allah then they are not equivalent potential sources for morality. If Allah exists making the entire world into a caliphate is an absolute moral command, but one I would refuse.

Then you have decided which god you believe in on the basis that you like one gods morals better than the other. That is subjective opinion.

On non-theism there is no absolute moral anything. This all hinges on if the God exists and can't be evaluated independently from it.

Well, I have never ever met a non-theist who has rejected the Golden Rule and the validity of the Golden Rule doesn't depend at all on the existence of deities.

In a way maybe in another no. It is inherent in Biblical theology that the same morality as is produced by God's nature was implanted in mine.

The other way around actually. Whatever people thought was moral at the time was projected onto their gods and changed with the circumstances.

When I see his commands line up with the moral instincts of the world it is more than opinion that concludes they are true.

The other way around of course. The moral instincts of the world were attributed to gods to provide more incentive for people to follow them.

To be so you have to prove that evolution is the sole force in its production and second that it did produce that exact command. However you still have only said what is not what ought to be. Science concerns what is, theology and morality concerns what ought to be. It may be that we do X because of nature but that is not to say X is actually right or good.

What is right and good is what benefits the individual, the community and by extension the human race.

You are missing the whole point. Why is my being here actually good?

Because you are perpetuating the human race.

It might be good to me, but that does nothing to say it is right. My being here is not good for the cows and chickens I eat. If they could cobble up arbitrary values and assign them to things it would be their survival not ours they would say is good. Without God I am not special, I have no actual worth, I have no sanctity associated with my life.

Without Allah would a Muslim be nothing special, have no actual worth or have no sanctity associated with his life? Does it matter if the god exists or not?

No, in fact I have killed hundreds of them. I can justify that by the idea that God gave them to me to derive food, clothing, and enjoyment from. You may only do so by arbitrarily assuming we are more valuable than them. That is not moral that is specieism.

If an alien race believes in a god that they think tells them that we were given to them to be food would it be moral for them to kill and eat us since they can justify it?

Way to divert the question so that your inept reply is no longer necessary. Talk about chickening out. This assumed their God exists, that he is good, and he told them to do this.

Like you assume that your god exists, that he is good, and gave you animals for food, there is no reason why they couldn't believe their god exists, that he is good to them, and gave them us for food.

If all that was true then it in fact would be good as long as my God does not exist. I however would kill as many of them as I could before they ate me and expect to be judged for it. You on the other hand if you are consistent would have to acknowledge they have as much of an evolutionary reason to eat us as we do to eat Chickens and submit. Or resist inconsistent with your own claims.

Don't know what you mean. What does it matter to a chicken if you eat it because you evolved to eat it or a god made it for you to eat? Or did you mean something else?

Nope I can think of a great many God concepts I prefer to mine in many ways. I spent most of my life hating God even if he existed but doubted it. It was kicking and screaming that he initially started to prove himself tome in ways I could not deny. What about hell, obedience, having to admit I am screwed up, or that my faith will get me resented and possibly killed in semi-rare circumstances these days, is a preference. God is not the path of least resistance and most convenience. Which is why millions that existed in places where faith was a target still believed.

Sure. Belief in any god can be very strong.

This is hardly relevant in a country that is over 80% Christian. It is also pointless because many times and I am quick to admit it Christians are fallible and make horrible God awful mistakes, including killing millions of people that are born. However even all totaled few occasions of Christian stupidity even attempt to approach the 20 million the no God Stalin eliminated. The point here is not what desperate Christians do that is forbidden by the Bible, but what can be founded on Christian ideals derived from God. If 100% of all abortions ever done were Christians it would not make it consistent with Biblical morality or mean that morality is less than extremely more solid and true given God than not. Cheap trick. If in a word fight I would say well played, since in a discussion about actual morality meaningless. BTW if no God exists why would these actions by anyone be actually wrong? We are discussing the implications of a perfect God not the local habits of fallen man. However I you wish to debate abortion alone we can do so and as I recently did, so know very well that over all non-theists are far guiltier than Christians and are infinitely guiltier than God for promoting the practice. What is the ratio of theists and non-theists on fighting against abortion? Which system has sufficient reason to stop the practice and which has none? For now I am out of time. Have a good weekend.

You too. I didn't intend to debate abortion as such. It was just an example of how little interest many Christians seem to have in following the morals of their own god.

 

[godnotgod]

Please elaborate your view point.

The philosopher Hegel once jokingly referred to the image of God, white-haired and bearded, an old man floating around in the ethosphere in a white sheet as 'the gaseous vertebrate'.

As regards your original post: why do you make the distinction between 'material' and 'non-material'?

 

[paarsurrey]

As regards your original post: why do you make the distinction between 'material' and 'non-material'?

Because all mateiral and physical things are a creation of the one true creator God.

 

[godnotgod]

You have done a complete fly by here. However by doing so you confirmed my suspicion that at this time has never failed. When you say you used to be a Christian what do you mean? In every single case where "I used to be a Christian" is claimed I find the exact same thing to be true. You misunderstand what it is that makes someone a Christian. There is very little surprise in this, I had the exact same problems before I eventually was born again. Being born again is like being in love until it happens you can't be sure it hasn't or if it exists. However once you have been it is very easy to see that until then you weren't. You take on what being a Christian means leaves little doubt that you were never born again. That is the one absolutely necessary thing to become a Christian. That is the induction point. What you and every person I heard claim this actually had was not a relationship with Christ but an intellectual consent to Christian theology. This type of faith has shallow roots. A very clear parallel is is the pre-upper room apostles. They had seen miracles and followed Jesus and I am sure every thought they had was of belief. However they were not born again and when Jesus was arrested their intellectual faith dissolved into fear and doubt. However after they were baptized with the Holy Spirit (born again) these same timid fearful apostles became faithful even to death even after Jesus was long gone. Being born again is everything, it happens because the Holy Spirit comes to live in your heart and is the spiritual mechanism that produces the palpable and un mistakable effects of the eradication of tons of guilt fear and regret that you don’t even know existed because it build up incrementally and slowly. I had never heard the term born again when I was saved yet the only way I could describe what I felt when in a spiritual daze for three days was like a new person. Anyway until you experience it you can't imagine it and I am sure doubt it. I do not care, I know what I know. As to what you said here:

The fact you are concentrating on all these intellectual aspects and theological concepts you claim must be adopted to be a Christian suggests very strongly you only had a intellectual agreement with a religious concept. I only need to believe in a few things to become a Christian. I am a sinner, God and Christ exist, and Christ paid my debt. I have no need of Trinitarian philosophy, of substitutionary atonement theological philosophy, or of even Christ's actual hour of death or when he resurrected or in what circumstances, or any of these things:
he was conceived via a spirit called the Holy Spirit, and then born of a virgin;
>he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was entombed.
>he descended into a hellish realm, and after 3 days, he was resurrected back to life on Earth and then ascended into a heavenly realm.
>he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. (we all know who is seated at his left)

I can doubt or be unaware of any of these things and still be born again. I do believe those things but they are not the basis on which I was saved. I was saved by what I can only describe as 90% study on my own, and 10% spiritual revelation concerning three things. BTW these are the three things that almost all NT scholars on both sides agree took place at least the historical parts of them. Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins, he was innocent of any crime but was killed as he predicted for my sake, his tomb was found empty.

I am not making an intellectual adoption of a series of theological doctrines I am accepting a spiritual provision based on very simple, concise, few, and amazing historical propositions and the result is purely spiritual and unmistakable.
In summary intellectual consents to theological ideas are shallow and are destroyed easily and do not make one a Christian, they perish easily and have little sticking power. Spiritual birth is almost impervious to anything, makes one a true Christian, comes with actual power that has never failed, and is unmistakable.

You have accused me in another thread of lying one too many times and I have no desire to continue a discussion with you. I did however feel this post worth the effort but will probably not contend whatever is invented to get out of what I have said. BTW the desperation that produces the pseupsychology used to explain away billions of claims to supernatural experience that a non theist finds so inconvenient is rediculous and would emberass me if I was making them and you definition of what makes someone a Christian is not biblical and silly. See Jesus and Nicodemus.

Your entire argument is not just silly and divisive, but not in synch with a true understanding of the spiritual experience.

The entire world community of professed Christians, no matter to which degree they have or have not had spiritual experiences, are Christians. They have made a decision based more or less on what I had outlined as the requirements for being a Christian. The key is sincerity. There are many levels of experience. You want to claim exclusive rights to the title 'Christian', and in so doing, are an elitist playing the game of spiritual one-upsmanship based on pride. You think yourself more 'authentic' than other Christians and non-Christians alike.

There are basically two areas of religious experience: the orthodox and the mystical, most Christians belonging to the orthodox view. Your 'born again' experience approaches the mystical, but, alas, is incomplete. Your ego is still alive and kicking. If your spirituality were genuine, you would embrace the entire world, just as it is. In fact, an authentic spiritual experience would have carried you from what you think is being a Christian, to a universal view of the world. What your commentary points to is the fact that you still do not really have a true understanding of Jesus's (actually, Yeshu's) message. You make a big noise about what a Christian is, claiming authenticity, while drowning out its true meaning, merely using it to prop your ego up for adulation and gratification from others.

You may have had what you call a 'born again' experience, but unfortunately, you carried forth egoic residue from your previous incarnation.

In effect, you are still running around, half-cocked, a religious zealot, still needing to convince others that your view is the correct view. That in itself is telltale. If your spirituality were truly authentic, you would not find a need for this. Your view would be transformed beyond what you currently have experienced. My suggestion to you is to nurture humility and silence, and allow the ego-noise to subside.

Being a Christian is not a black and white affair as you have described; it is a matter of degree.

BTW, it appears your 'born again' experience did not do much for your intellect, as you, for the second time, have confused me with another who accused you of lying. I would highly doubt that Jesus would appoint you as a judge in this world, as your propensity would be to condemn the innocent while letting the guilty go free. That toxic residue your ego carried forth is still at large. Go fetch!

 

[godnotgod]

Because all mateiral and physical things are a creation of the one true creator God.

OK, but what is a 'material and physical' thing, as compared to what is 'non-material and non-physical', (as long as you are making the distinction)?

 

[McBell]

A rather arrogant claim if you ask me.
That you think you are able to declare who is and who is not a Christian, who was and who was not ever a Christian, who was and who was not "born again" (whatever that is supposed to mean) tends to reveal that perhaps you think way to highly of your own opinions on the matter.

By what authority do you deem yourself able to speak for your god in such matters?

:yes:

He still hasn't responded to my argument on the issue, though, and I suspect he may never.

I am going to go out on a limb and say he most likely does not have a cookie cutter basket of bull **** to dish out in reply.

 

[godnotgod]

The fact you are concentrating on all these intellectual aspects and theological concepts you claim must be adopted to be a Christian suggests very strongly you only had a intellectual agreement with a religious concept. I only need to believe in a few things to become a Christian. I am a sinner, God and Christ exist, and Christ paid my debt. I have no need of Trinitarian philosophy, of substitutionary atonement theological philosophy, or of even Christ's actual hour of death or when he resurrected or in what circumstances, or any of these things:
he was conceived via a spirit called the Holy Spirit, and then born of a virgin;
>he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was entombed.
>he descended into a hellish realm, and after 3 days, he was resurrected back to life on Earth and then ascended into a heavenly realm.
>he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

I can doubt or be unaware of any of these things and still be born again. I do believe those things but they are not the basis on which I was saved. I was saved by what I can only describe as 90% study on my own, and 10% spiritual revelation concerning three things.

Well goody goody for you, but neither your view, nor how YOU got 'saved' is the issue here; what constitutes a Christian is, and what I have outlined above, FYI, is a synopsis of the Apostle's Creed which goes all the way back to the 5th century, while you're still wet behind the ears. It is adopted by just about every denomination as the basis for becoming Christian.

Apostles' Creed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While you may have had what you call a 'born again' experience, and other Christians have not, does not disqualify them from being bona-fide Christians. They have made their choices whether based on an intellectual understanding or a heartfelt one, or both, and these choices are to be respected. But for you to rely ONLY on the born again experience and shun doctrine diminishes your Christianity, and demonstrates your ignorance.

You reject substitutionary atonement, and then claim Jesus paid the price for your sins. SA is the central core of Christian doctrine, and without it, there is no Christianity.

 

[1robin]

I see. People attribute their morals to their gods and since they say a god is behind those morals instead of themselves that provides a more solid foundation than arbitrary opinion. Which is why religion evolved.

You seem to be missing the necessary context even after I have at least three times made it very clear under what conditions would God be a vastly better foundation for morality than the no God, opinions. IF AND ONLY IF THAT GOD ACTUALLY EXISTS would his moral compass be true. You seem to have the idea that the sum total of faith is a sourceless theological proposition. In this context I am talking about what the moral implications are IF A GOD ACTUALLY exists.

Then you have decided which god you believe in on the basis that you like one gods morals better than the other. That is subjective opinion.

So far 90% of the questions I ask you are relied to by asking me a question instead of answering. The other ten percent as in this case is to simply reassert exactly what I do not believe and what I have tried to straighten out. Please pay close attention here: I DECIDED WHAT THEOLGY I BELIEVE IS TRUE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE not preference. Many things in the Bible are not what I would wish. The Biblical God makes demands I do not like and says we are all at fault. I wish this plus many things were different, however I do not determine what is true on the basis of what is convenient. That is what goes on on your side and I am sure in some cases in mine but I did not arrive at faith by preference. In fact it was against my will in some respects. I swear I have already said this twice. I went back and checked to make sure I had already not responded to this broken record.

Well, I have never ever met a non-theist who has rejected the Golden Rule and the validity of the Golden Rule doesn't depend at all on the existence of deities.

Once again you are confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. Of course a non theist can agree that the golden rule is good. He just can't explain why without God. He can only assume doing to others is good. He must basically redefine morality as equal to ethical considerations for our fellow man. Assuming and redefining are not necessary in theism and a terrible foundation for explaining morality. Please look up the ontology/epistemology concepts of morality.

The other way around actually. Whatever people thought was moral at the time was projected onto their gods and changed with the circumstances.

I think what you are attempting to do here is introduce the idea that man created God in our image. That may be true for almost all theologies but how did Christianity create a God that is perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, non material, omnipotent, spaceless, timeless, and personal. Besides personal what human ever fit that description? This is just another off ramp with no merit from the highway of truth.

The other way around of course. The moral instincts of the world were attributed to gods to provide more incentive for people to follow them.

Prove it in my God's case. See above. My God's followers willing suffered and died for him and that argues against a wishful thinking God. See above.

What is right and good is what benefits the individual, the community and by extension the human race.Because you are perpetuating the human race.

You are really not getting it. Once again you have simply assumed human flourishing is good or moral. Basically you have redefined morality to be human flourishing. It is a terminology shell game. I have no need of shell games, if God exists then we do have unique worth and our flourishing in a way would be good. You however have no way to assign actual value to humans. Our flouring mean caws and pigs won't flourish. Why without God are we more valuable than them. Maybe cow flouring is actually what is good. If we are simply 1 in a million types of biological anomolies we have no more right and it is good that we flouring at other biological anomalies expense. That is specie ism and if you were consistent you would understand that. Since you have no standard or source that make our flourishing good you are simply asserting it is. This is the kind of mess that denying an essential and large portion of moral truth exists. I need no shell games, no arbitrary assumptions, and no redefinitions but you do because you have to fill the void that denying God has left.

Without Allah would a Muslim be nothing special, have no actual worth or have no sanctity associated with his life? Does it matter if the god exists or not?

Yes it matters. We can't assign worth to creatures we had no role in producing and no idea what framwork they are placed in. We can assign an arbitrary value to things usually based on convenience and self interest but that means nothing. You might as well declare Venus worth 12 dollars and 37 cents. It is meaningless. Only a God can assign actual value to what he created. You must assume it, and your assumption is arbitrary and irrelevant. In fact without God we are all objectively equally valueless. Value is a relative statement of worth and without God would be different with each person and without the comparative framework by which to know the relative value of anything.

If an alien race believes in a god that they think tells them that we were given to them to be food would it be moral for them to kill and eat us since they can justify it?

What is going on here, I have already answered this exact question. If their God exists, my God does not, no other God besides those two exists, he actually issued them that order, and he was a moral being then yes it would be moral. There are about 5 evidence less speculations there, a repeat question, and a non answer. If we allow all speculation into an argument it would become infinite and unresolvable. I will ask again what would you using non theism to defend your right to resist an alien race who used the same methods you did but instead determined alien flourishing is good for the same selfish reasons you are. Me I have God and he endowed me with the right to refuse cooperation with those that are not acting in cooperation with him.

Like you assume that your god exists, that he is good, and gave you animals for food, there is no reason why they couldn't believe their god exists, that he is good to them, and gave them us for food.

First: There is alot wrong here. I through spiritual experience know my God exists. Second: We must posit the Muslim God to evaluate him. The same with all theological God's. Since I know God exists and how I was led to the place in my life was by following the Biblical road map to salvation. I followed it word for word and received exactly what it promised. When I am talking with a non theist I can not expect them to take my word on faith so I say we will assume my God exists so we can evaluate him, but I personally know he does. The same assuming must be done for evaluation all Gods.

Don't know what you mean. What does it matter to a chicken if you eat it because you evolved to eat it or a god made it for you to eat? Or did you mean something else?

I see what is going on now. I do not know how it happened but you are responding to my reply to your alien question here.
S

ure. Belief in any god can be very strong.

This one was my respose to your assertion I selected the God I believe in by finding one that I preferred. Things got really mixed up somehow.

You too. I didn't intend to debate abortion as such. It was just an example of how little interest many Christians seem to have in following the morals of their own god.

First I agree completely that the worst thing about Christianity is Christians. G.K. Chesterton replied to a letter from someone that asked "What is wrong with world?" he replied "I am" sincerely yours GK. Christians at best are not perfect and at worst diabolical. The difference is that we know, admit it, and seek forgiveness. Non-theist think they are good make morality conform to them, instead of them to it. That is the kind of evil garbage denying God produces.

I have seen your data before and I knew it was wrong but could not rememer why until today. If you compare the number of Christians to the abortion they get and do it with non theists in the US, you will find Christian totals higher but with respect to how much of the population they are their rates are lower than non theists. However that had nothing to do with the argument.

 

[1robin]

The philosopher Hegel once jokingly referred to the image of God, white-haired and bearded, an old man floating around in the ethosphere in a white sheet as 'the gaseous vertebrate'.

As regards your original post: why do you make the distinction between 'material' and 'non-material'?

Without a link to it I can only guess. Where I normally make this distiction is in the case about God not being made of matter and there fore he is indendant of a material universe. That means he could have existed even when the universe didn't.

 

[1robin]

OK, but what is a 'material and physical' thing, as compared to what is 'non-material and non-physical', (as long as you are making the distinction)?

God is a non corporeal (non material) mind, as well as independent of time, space, onipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and personal. We are dual modal beings. Our mind is dependent on the brain but more that just the material brain, our soul and spirit are independent from our bodies. You can look up modal being if you want but it is sophisticated stuff.

 

[1robin]

Your entire argument is not just silly and divisive, but not in synch with a true understanding of the spiritual experience.

The entire world community of professed Christians, no matter to which degree they have or have not had spiritual experiences, are Christians. They have made a decision based more or less on what I had outlined as the requirements for being a Christian. The key is sincerity. There are many levels of experience. You want to claim exclusive rights to the title 'Christian', and in so doing, are an elitist playing the game of spiritual one-upsmanship based on pride. You think yourself more 'authentic' than other Christians and non-Christians alike.

There are basically two areas of religious experience: the orthodox and the mystical, most Christians belonging to the orthodox view. Your 'born again' experience approaches the mystical, but, alas, is incomplete. Your ego is still alive and kicking. If your spirituality were genuine, you would embrace the entire world, just as it is. In fact, an authentic spiritual experience would have carried you from what you think is being a Christian, to a universal view of the world. What your commentary points to is the fact that you still do not really have a true understanding of Jesus's (actually, Yeshu's) message. You make a big noise about what a Christian is, claiming authenticity, while drowning out its true meaning, merely using it to prop your ego up for adulation and gratification from others.

You may have had what you call a 'born again' experience, but unfortunately, you carried forth egoic residue from your previous incarnation.

In effect, you are still running around, half-cocked, a religious zealot, still needing to convince others that your view is the correct view. That in itself is telltale. If your spirituality were truly authentic, you would not find a need for this. Your view would be transformed beyond what you currently have experienced. My suggestion to you is to nurture humility and silence, and allow the ego-noise to subside.

Being a Christian is not a black and white affair as you have described; it is a matter of degree.

BTW, it appears your 'born again' experience did not do much for your intellect, as you, for the second time, have confused me with another who accused you of lying. I would highly doubt that Jesus would appoint you as a judge in this world, as your propensity would be to condemn the innocent while letting the guilty go free. That toxic residue your ego carried forth is still at large. Go fetch!

I quickly scanned this and did not see a single accurate sentence in it. I will need substantial time to rebut this stuff and will do so when I have that much time.

 

[ArcNinja]

You seem to be missing the necessary context even after I have at least three times made it very clear under what conditions would God be a vastly better foundation for morality than the no God, opinions. IF AND ONLY IF THAT GOD ACTUALLY EXISTS would his moral compass be true. You seem to have the idea that the sum total of faith is a sourceless theological proposition. In this context I am talking about what the moral implications are IF A GOD ACTUALLY exists.

There are actually a lot of moral codes and standards of living that I have found to be better than Christianity and take non-theistic approaches at life, some of which were around well before Christianity became established.

So far 90% of the questions I ask you are relied to by asking me a question instead of answering. The other ten percent as in this case is to simply reassert exactly what I do not believe and what I have tried to straighten out. Please pay close attention here: I DECIDED WHAT THEOLGY I BELIEVE IS TRUE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE not preference. Many things in the Bible are not what I would wish. The Biblical God makes demands I do not like and says we are all at fault. I wish this plus many things were different, however I do not determine what is true on the basis of what is convenient. That is what goes on on your side and I am sure in some cases in mine but I did not arrive at faith by preference. In fact it was against my will in some respects. I swear I have already said this twice. I went back and checked to make sure I had already not responded to this broken record.

Enlighten me with this: what evidence have you found to be true in regards to Christianity?

Once again you are confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. Of course a non theist can agree that the golden rule is good. He just can't explain why without God. He can only assume doing to others is good. He must basically redefine morality as equal to ethical considerations for our fellow man. Assuming and redefining are not necessary in theism and a terrible foundation for explaining morality. Please look up the ontology/epistemology concepts of morality.

There are plenty of non-theist moral codes that weren't shaped by Christianity. I suggest you look them up.

I think what you are attempting to do here is introduce the idea that man created God in our image. That may be true for almost all theologies but how did Christianity create a God that is perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, non material, omnipotent, spaceless, timeless, and personal. Besides personal what human ever fit that description? This is just another off ramp with no merit from the highway of truth.

The Christian god is far from perfect. In fact, I think that even I have a better moral compass than he/she/it did.

First: There is alot wrong here. I through spiritual experience know my God exists. Second: We must posit the Muslim God to evaluate him. The same with all theological God's. Since I know God exists and how I was led to the place in my life was by following the Biblical road map to salvation. I followed it word for word and received exactly what it promised. When I am talking with a non theist I can not expect them to take my word on faith so I say we will assume my God exists so we can evaluate him, but I personally know he does. The same assuming must be done for evaluation all Gods.

You know for sure that your god exists just as Muslims, Mormons, etc. know that their god exists. It's all the same to me.

First I agree completely that the worst thing about Christianity is Christians. G.K. Chesterton replied to a letter from someone that asked "What is wrong with world?" he replied "I am" sincerely yours GK. Christians at best are not perfect and at worst diabolical. The difference is that we know, admit it, and seek forgiveness. Non-theist think they are good make morality conform to them, instead of them to it. That is the kind of evil garbage denying God produces.

In what way is a non-theist "denying god?" That's like saying that god is the only answer, and "it's either god or nothing." That's a bit of an unfair statement, don't you think? I'm a non-theist, but I don't try to make morality conform to me. I often find it extremely difficult to adhere to the moral codes that I follow, but I still follow them.

 

[godnotgod]

Without a link to it I can only guess. Where I normally make this distiction is in the case about God not being made of matter and there fore he is indendant of a material universe. That means he could have existed even when the universe didn't.

Here is the link to your original post: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3261051-post642.html

..in which you stated:

"Science deals with the things physical and material; the Creator God is not physical or material so any scientific evidence for the Creator God is out of question and uncalled for."

How can you say it is uncalled for, when the entire 'physical' universe, according to you, was created by your invisible creator-God? Something in the physical creation must point to its maker. What is that something, that is, assuming it has a maker. Ordinarily, we would think exactly the opposite of 'things made'; we would use some inherent evidence to locate the maker, would we not?

But you still haven't answered the question: what is 'matter'? What is 'non-matter'? You use these words, but without qualification.

'Could have' is neither here nor there, and it is perfectly possible that the universe has always existed, except that it has both an on and off phase. In the 'off' phase, it is simply not being manifested. It's there, but you just don't see it. In fact, in the 'off' phase, you aren't manifested either, since you are part of the universe itself.

 

[godnotgod]

I quickly scanned this and did not see a single accurate sentence in it. I will need substantial time to rebut this stuff and will do so when I have that much time.

Unfortunately, you are not some absolute authority that can simply dismiss my comments wholesale. I explained why I said what I did. At this point, you're just evading the issues raised because you are in denial. I see through your facade, and you know it.

 

[godnotgod]

God is a non corporeal (non material) mind, as well as independent of time, space, onipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and personal. We are dual modal beings. Our mind is dependent on the brain but more that just the material brain, our soul and spirit are independent from our bodies. You can look up modal being if you want but it is sophisticated stuff.

Not sure about you, but my brain, mind, soul, spirit, and body are all of one piece. You are discombobulated, are you?

You have not addressed the original question here: what is the difference between material and non-material?

Jesus was corporeal, so does that mean he was not God?

 

[ArtieE]

IF AND ONLY IF THAT GOD ACTUALLY EXISTS would his moral compass be true. You seem to have the idea that the sum total of faith is a sourceless theological proposition. In this context I am talking about what the moral implications are IF A GOD ACTUALLY exists.

We have no evidence that any god exists but we do have an abundance of evidence that people make up gods.

So far 90% of the questions I ask you are relied to by asking me a question instead of answering. The other ten percent as in this case is to simply reassert exactly what I do not believe and what I have tried to straighten out. Please pay close attention here: I DECIDED WHAT THEOLGY I BELIEVE IS TRUE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE not preference.

There is no evidence for the existence of any gods.

Once again you are confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. Of course a non theist can agree that the golden rule is good. He just can't explain why without God.

"one of the ways we could come to know our moral duties is via a (scriptural) revelation of God’s commands. But that isn’t to say that the only way of coming to know our moral duties is through such a means.

The salient point is that God’s commands constitute our moral duties. That is a claim of moral ontology. How we come to know our moral duties is a matter of moral epistemology and is irrelevant to the argument."

Read more: Keeping Moral Epistemology and Moral Ontology Distinct | Reasonable Faith

The Golden Rule is good because it benefits the individual, the community and the human race as a whole and improves chances of survival for all and since I want to survive it's good for me to follow it. I don't need gods such as the Christian or Allah or Brahma to command me to follow it but many people who can't reason it out for themselves do.

He can only assume doing to others is good. He must basically redefine morality as equal to ethical considerations for our fellow man. Assuming and redefining are not necessary in theism and a terrible foundation for explaining morality. Please look up the ontology/epistemology concepts of morality.

We can explain the evolution of morality and people who understand how and why morality evolved understand why it's beneficial for everybody themselves included to live by for example the Golden Rule. That is a good foundation for morality. But some people don't have logic, reason and common sense and they don't understand the explanations how and why morality evolved and why we should live moral lives. So for them evolution provided religions with gods and other religious authority figures so instead of behaving morally because they understand the reasons why and how morals evolved they behave morally because they think a god says they should.

Just think of a family with a father and son. If an intelligent son behaves badly the father will explain why the behavior is bad and the son won't repeat it. If an unintelligent son behaves badly and asks why he shouldn't behave that way the father will just say "because I say so!" Religions are just the same principle for adults.

I think what you are attempting to do here is introduce the idea that man created God in our image. That may be true for almost all theologies but how did Christianity create a God that is perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, non material, omnipotent, spaceless, timeless, and personal. Besides personal what human ever fit that description? This is just another off ramp with no merit from the highway of truth.

The Christian God evolved into that. Please see [youtube]MlnnWbkMlbg[/youtube]
3.3.3 Atheism: A History of God (Part 1) - YouTube for a short introduction on how we evolved God.

You are really not getting it. Once again you have simply assumed human flourishing is good or moral. Basically you have redefined morality to be human flourishing. It is a terminology shell game. I have no need of shell games, if God exists then we do have unique worth and our flourishing in a way would be good. You however have no way to assign actual value to humans. Our flouring mean caws and pigs won't flourish. Why without God are we more valuable than them.

Your God is your excuse to claim that you are more valuable than them.

Only a God can assign actual value to what he created. You must assume it, and your assumption is arbitrary and irrelevant. In fact without God we are all objectively equally valueless. Value is a relative statement of worth and without God would be different with each person and without the comparative framework by which to know the relative value of anything.

Are Christians valueless without the Christian God, Muslims valueless without Allah, Hindus valueless without Brahma?

What is going on here, I have already answered this exact question. If their God exists, my God does not, no other God besides those two exists, he actually issued them that order, and he was a moral being then yes it would be moral. There are about 5 evidence less speculations there, a repeat question, and a non answer. If we allow all speculation into an argument it would become infinite and unresolvable. I will ask again what would you using non theism to defend your right to resist an alien race who used the same methods you did but instead determined alien flourishing is good for the same selfish reasons you are.

I don't follow your reasoning.

First: There is alot wrong here. I through spiritual experience know my God exists. Second: We must posit the Muslim God to evaluate him. The same with all theological God's. Since I know God exists and how I was led to the place in my life was by following the Biblical road map to salvation. I followed it word for word and received exactly what it promised. When I am talking with a non theist I can not expect them to take my word on faith so I say we will assume my God exists so we can evaluate him, but I personally know he does. The same assuming must be done for evaluation all Gods.

If we accepted personal experiences as evidence for the existence of entities such as gods we would have to release plenty of people now in mental hospitals and start believing them. This is not a rational approach.

I see what is going on now. I do not know how it happened but you are responding to my reply to your alien question here.
S This one was my respose to your assertion I selected the God I believe in by finding one that I preferred. Things got really mixed up somehow.

Yes. I think we have to stick with shorter posts.

First I agree completely that the worst thing about Christianity is Christians. G.K. Chesterton replied to a letter from someone that asked "What is wrong with world?" he replied "I am" sincerely yours GK. Christians at best are not perfect and at worst diabolical. The difference is that we know, admit it, and seek forgiveness. Non-theist think they are good make morality conform to them, instead of them to it. That is the kind of evil garbage denying God produces.

I don't consider logic, reason and common sense, altruism, compassion, empathy, conscience, ethics, the Golden Rule etc evil garbage. If those qualities don't stop you from doing immoral things I'm glad that you believe in a god you think says you shouldn't do immoral things.

I have seen your data before and I knew it was wrong but could not rememer why until today. If you compare the number of Christians to the abortion they get and do it with non theists in the US, you will find Christian totals higher but with respect to how much of the population they are their rates are lower than non theists. However that had nothing to do with the argument.

No, my point was just that there shouldn't be any Christians having abortions if Christians were more moral than others. Seems a lot of Christians don't care much about their god commanding them not to murder so what's the point of calling themselves Christians in the first place if they don't obey their God?

 

[1robin]

There are actually a lot of moral codes and standards of living that I have found to be better than Christianity and take non-theistic approaches at life, some of which were around well before Christianity became established.

1. We have not really been discussing how good a certain moral claim is. We have been discussing why without God morality can't rise above arbitrary opinion and preference. I will give you an example, please prove that if I killed everyone on earth that would actually be wrong, and please define good objectively.
2. Christianity is what Judaism changed into. So it goes back to at least 4500BC. I regard anything that occurred in non historical times to be pot luck guesses.
3. I believe we all have a God given conscience and that is why we all recognize a similar moral code. Of course people have apprehended the moral dimension and made moral claims outside of believers.
4. The ten commandments were not the first morals given to men. They were a special attempt by God to codify the moral dimension we all apprehend. He also added some Hebrew specific and special rules in codified form.
5. Yet again moral epistemology is confused with moral epistemology. I was not discuss how people perceive or learn of morals. I was talking about how morals may be founded. Withought God they are founded on arbitrary preference. With God on the fundamental moral nature of the universe.

6.When an atheist, gnostic, or Hindu etc.... for example believe they are not to murder they get from their God given conscience and those of others around them. The problem occurs because when they remove the acutual source for "do not murder" they lose a way to give humans special worth of give life sanity and are left with only preference as a source. They keep the command but by uncoupling it from it's true source turn a moral absolute into an opinion or a societal preference. It is no longer absolutly true and Grounded in objectivity, it is now grounded in subjective arbitrary opinion and all opinions have equal merit. How do you solve that?

Enlighten me with this: what evidence have you found to be true in regards to Christianity?

It is next to impossible to list the millions of lines of evidence for God in 1 of 8 parts in a single post. You would have to make a thread before I could give even a meaningful part. The reason I believe the Bible are a composite of millions of peices of evidence. Some good some almost proof. Just to give a few. I followed the Gospels spiritual road map and found exactly what it promised. Christ. I experienced him in an unmistakable born again experience. I saw a distinct character difference between dedicated Christians (maybe 10% of all Christians) and all other groups of people. Even being hostile to God at the time I could not deny the miracles and spiritual health I saw in those people. Also The Bible is the most textually accurate book in ancient history, the most read book in human history, and which contains the most influential individual in human history, who is also the most textually attested person in ancient history. All that for a mostly illiterate minor tribe in the middle east? It is internally consistent through over 2000yrs and several cultures and over 40 authors (unlike the Qur'an). It is philosophically consistent. The actual impossibility of many things without God. The fact that men who scattered when Jesus was arrested and ones killing Christians as fast as possible would over a few moments or days become obedient to death and endeavor to save Christians and become one. This is just frustrating. For every word I type there are 2000 I need to. Make a thread and I can get in depth.

There are plenty of non-theist moral codes that weren't shaped by Christianity. I suggest you look them up.

No need I agree. My point is that without a God morals can be adopted just not sufficiently explained.

The Christian god is far from perfect. In fact, I think that even I have a better moral compass than he/she/it did.

This is the equivalent on an ant telling Newton he got calculus wrong.

You know for sure that your god exists just as Muslims, Mormons, etc. know that their god exists. It's all the same to me.

And you would be mistaken. To be a Muslin I only have to declare that I am one be reciting a chant a few times. I can do that even though Allah does not exist. Christians must experience God to simply begin to be a Christian. That can't be done without God. Those are two completely different systems.

In what way is a non-theist "denying god?" That's like saying that god is the only answer, and "it's either god or nothing."

Without God neither the universe nor us exists, exactly what is it you think you can do or have without him.
New International Version (©1984)
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

I am not a fan of exclusivity but I do not decide what is true or not based on what I prefer, as most non believers do.

That's a bit of an unfair statement, don't you think?

For that claim to have any meaning a moral transcendent must exist. If nature is all there is what does fair even mean. Nothing has an equal chance in nature. Rejecting God causes people to get stuck in the strangest paradoxes. It is like you deny manufacturing exists and yet we have all these cars around. How ever you describe how those cars came to be will have gaping flaws because it isn't true. For something to be fair or unfair means it must be compared to an absolute standard of justice. Humans can't produce it. How crooked a stick is can only be determined by comparing it to a perfectly straight one. Humans only make crooked sticks because we are fallible. Famous quote: "Out of the crooked timber of man no straight thing has ever been made" It takes God to introduce WHAT SHOULD BE in order to compare what science gives us WHAT IS.

I'm a non-theist, but I don't try to make morality conform to me. I often find it extremely difficult to adhere to the moral codes that I follow, but I still follow them.

Well first you are not a pure non theist. You have grown up and been conditioned within the protestant west, the Catholic near east, the Islamic middle east, or the oriental philosophy of the far east. If you live in the west you are chained to Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. If you pay attention their method and ideal are largely yours. Also please keep in mind my argument is not about the knowldge of moral truth, it is grounding them or explaining them. You have deny moral manufacturing but have all these morals laying around and I say you will never found them on anything as good a God, not even close. You can adopt them the same as I can you just cant explain them.

 

[Falvlun]

Ordinarily, we would think exactly the opposite of 'things made'; we would use some inherent evidence to locate the maker, would we not?

Oh my gosh. What if we turn the world over, and see stamped in little block letters "Made in China"? That would explain everything.

 

[godnotgod]

Oh my gosh. What if we turn the world over, and see stamped in little block letters "Made in China"? That would explain everything.

Thanks for making my point. No evidence of the world having been 'made'.

Now, if you need evidence that the world has been 'had', that's a different story!

Hmmmm?....do you suppose the world might have been grown?

(re: 'Made in China': unnecessary, as it is common knowledge, LOL)

 

[godnotgod]

The problem with morality:

When a concept of The Good is formed, the concept of Evil is automatically formed.

Having formed a concept of Evil, Evil must now be opposed, as dictated by The Good.

In opposing Evil, one only makes Evil stronger.
(as the history of the world is testament to)

Therefore, the sage never tries to do [moral] good.
*****


True virtue does not display itself
for all to see,
and thus is truly virtuous.
Inferior character
always keeps virtue in sight,
and thus lacks true virtue.
The highest virtue is without action,
Yet things always get done.
Lesser virtue creates much effort
in order to get things done.
Kindness
requires effort to keep its name.
Righteousness
requires effort to maintain itself.
Moral rules
require a response or it raises a hand to enforce.
In this way, the natural Tao is lost
and cultivated virtue is all that is left.
When virtue is lost,
Kindness follows.
When kindness is lost,
Righteousness follows.
When Righteousness is lost,
Rules of propriety prevail.
The veneer of false sincerity thins
and chaos begins.

Tao te Ching, Ch. 38