Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

05.28.2021 12:21AM

-->

@3RU7AL

Post 960:

I'd like to just note here that I am a HUGE FAN of your work.

I really am.

I'm extremely impressed with your tenacity and clear thinking.

Thank you, and I am impressed that you are willing to examine and test what I have to say.

But I'm going to ask you for a big favor.

Try to imagine something.

Just for like, two minutes.

Try to imagine you are born into a remote village.

You don't know what time-period you're in and you don't know what part of the planet you're living on because you're a baby.

Now try to imagine growing up, getting older.

You learn to herd your family's goats and gather grains and carry water.

You fall in love.

You have a child.

You've never seen a book.

Is your life meaningful?

I'll answer in the generic "you."

Yes. The reason, because you are created in the image and likeness of God. You seek and look for meaning. Whether you find Him is a different matter.

Now, suppose you believe there was no God. Meaning would be something you manufactured that in the long run means nothing. There would be no meaning to our lives once we were dead. You are born, live and die, then nothing matters anymore. But why are you so bent on finding meaning while you live if you believe God does not exist? Is it just to make you feel happy and worthwhile but in effect you are fooling yourself? Your life in of no more significance than a fly on dung, and in a short period of time you will be forgotten. You are also living inconsistently in a meaningless universe, one that has no meaning to or in it in seeking.

As a Christian I believe the Universe was created for a purpose. It displays the majesty and glory of God. It reminds us there is something far greater than ourselves. Thus, I am consistent in believing life is meaningful. There is sense to be made of it.

#1262

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

05.28.2021 12:22PM

-->

@PGA2.0

Is your life meaningful?
I'll answer in the generic "you."

Yes. The reason, because you are created in the image and likeness of God. You seek and look for meaning. Whether you find Him is a different matter.

Now, suppose you believe there was no God. Meaning would be something you manufactured that in the long run means nothing. There would be no meaning to our lives once we were dead. You are born, live and die, then nothing matters anymore. But why are you so bent on finding meaning while you live if you believe God does not exist? Is it just to make you feel happy and worthwhile but in effect you are fooling yourself? Your life in of no more significance than a fly on dung, and in a short period of time you will be forgotten. You are also living inconsistently in a meaningless universe, one that has no meaning to or in it in seeking.

You contradict yourself. You grant the man in the scenario has a meaningful life, and then go on to say non-belief in a god (which seems to be a condition of the scenario) makes "your life no more significant than fly on dung".

It is also interesting that you suggest "belief in god" not the 'existence of God' is what gives lives meaning.

Topic's author

#1263

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

05.28.2021 03:45PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

Is your life meaningful?
I'll answer in the generic "you."

[a] Yes. The reason, because you are created in the image and likeness of God. You seek and look for meaning. Whether you find Him is a different matter.

[b] Now, suppose you believe there was no God. Meaning would be something you manufactured that in the long run means nothing. There would be no meaning to our lives once we were dead. You are born, live and die, then nothing matters anymore. But why are you so bent on finding meaning while you live if you believe God does not exist? Is it just to make you feel happy and worthwhile but in effect you are fooling yourself? Your life in of no more significance than a fly on dung, and in a short period of time you will be forgotten. You are also living inconsistently in a meaningless universe, one that has no meaning to or in it in seeking.

You contradict yourself. You grant the man in the scenario has a meaningful life, and then go on to say non-belief in a god (which seems to be a condition of the scenario) makes "your life no more significant than fly on dung".

Let me try and explain it again.

[a] I'm saying that humanity makes meaning even if they do not believe in God because they are created in the image and likeness of God. I never conceded the non-existence of God.

[b] I'm saying the consequences of you (an atheist) believing God does not exist would be that you believe meaning is something that is manufactured for this short life, but in the bigger picture your manufactured meaning is meaningless. You would be no more significant that a fly on dung because there is no ultimate purpose for meaning because there is no ultimate purpose for your life. The universe does not care about your existence. You believe nothing matters for you once you are dead. Meaning would become arbitrary to whatever purpose you wanted to give it in this life, but the consequences of such ideas would be that you believe the universe is indifferent to our existence, not made for us. You would believe you are creating purpose despite ultimate purposelessness.

It is also interesting that you suggest "belief in god" not the 'existence of God' is what gives lives meaning.

You must believe in God before meaning makes sense. That does not deny God His existence. Meaning and morality needs an ultimate objective standard and purpose or else it can mean whatever a person wants to make it, and as I said before there is no ultimate purpose for life. Life is just a freak of nature, a chance happenstance with no ultimate purpose or meaning.

#1264

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,199

05.28.2021 04:10PM

-->

@PGA2.0

I think I will go with Thomas Edison. Betcha didn't know this one was a non-believer! Well, he was. Quote: "I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God." Quote: "So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake... Religion is all bunk." Quote: "I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul....I am an aggregate of cells, as, for instance, New York City is an aggregate of individuals. Will New York City go to heaven?....No; nature made us -- nature did it all -- not the gods of the religions."

#1265

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

05.28.2021 04:17PM

-->

@PGA2.0

Life is just a freak of nature, a chance happenstance with no ultimate purpose or meaning.

What happens if this is the case, do you think? Like how would your life, YOURS specifically, be materially different?

#1266

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,199

05.28.2021 05:23PM

-->

@PGA2.0

You would be no more significant that a fly on dung because there is no ultimate purpose for meaning because there is no ultimate purpose for your life.

I wonder what the ultimate purpose was for my cousin that died from leukemia when he was 7 years old?

Topic's author

#1267

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

05.28.2021 07:07PM

-->

@FLRW

I think I will go with Thomas Edison. Betcha didn't know this one was a non-believer! Well, he was. Quote: "I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God." Quote: "So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake... Religion is all bunk." Quote: "I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul....I am an aggregate of cells, as, for instance, New York City is an aggregate of individuals. Will New York City go to heaven?....No; nature made us -- nature did it all -- not the gods of the religions."

If you are an aggregate of cells, governed by your environment and your genetic makeup and how your cells mutate, what does it matter how one group of cells reacts to another? Things just happen so don't make a big deal of it. Please be consistent with your ideology. Hitler was governed by his aggregation of cells. What is wrong with that?

I believe God makes salvation and thus heaven an individual matter in the NT, not a city matter as with Nineveh in the OT. Jesus made faith conditional on the individual. A person must be born again.

Edison gave fake intention and ability to "Nature" making it his god. For him, his presuppositional starting point would be matter, or matter and energy, because he is attributing all or everything to matter. Without a personal supernatural being what is left in explaining why we are here? I question whether he got into the heady issues involved with his worldview. People are so gullible. As I have said many times, I do not believe he can be consistent with his necessary starting point. Instead, he should have wound his thinking back to the nuts and bolts of what holds such a position together - blind, indifferent chance happenstance is responsible. What can chance do? I say nothing. Chance is not a thing. It is an abstract term used to describe probability or a freak situation. How does a freak situation sustain anything? And what is the agency behind such freak situations? The myth is that it has the ability to do something. And if the universe had a beginning what caused it to begin? Did Edison say, and why would I believe him? The Universe must have a cause if it had a beginning because self-creation is a contradiction in terms which I hope you understand. If not, I will be glad to explain it further.

Topic's author

#1268

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

05.28.2021 07:28PM

-->

@ludofl3x

Life is just a freak of nature, a chance happenstance with no ultimate purpose or meaning.
What happens if this is the case, do you think? Like how would your life, YOURS specifically, be materially different?

I do not believe it is the case. I do not believe we could make sense of anything, ultimately, if this was the case. I believe it is impossible. Thus, prove otherwise. You know you can't.

Now, what would be the implications of existence without God? Anything goes. Why would you expect uniformity of nature, things to continue and be sustained? There would be no reason for these things happening. Purpose requires intention and adequate agency. For the atheist, why does anything exist at all? I can't understand how there can be a reason because matter devoid of personal being is unable to reason. Thus, the atheist cannot make sense of existence. If you think otherwise, then explain how and why. How would something unreasoning sustain anything? Why would the universe come into existence and how? And if you do, per chance, find a reason, why would you expect to in an unintelligent universe???

Should I expect silence from my enquiry and questions yet again, as per usual?

Topic's author

#1269

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

05.28.2021 07:41PM

-->

@FLRW

You would be no more significant that a fly on dung because there is no ultimate purpose for meaning because there is no ultimate purpose for your life.
I wonder what the ultimate purpose was for my cousin that died from leukemia when he was 7 years old?

That is something only God has the answer for. I can only speculate. Good can come from bad things happening. When my father died I started my quest for meaning in life that lead me to the biblical God. Without God the point is that there is no ultimate purpose. Without God, which you seem to believe does not exist, why are you looking for purpose??? Without God, why does it matter to you?

And speaking of good, what does good mean without God? Its all relative. One persons good is another persons evil unless there is a fixed unchanging standard or measure for the good, or what you would call good. That brings me to another point, why is what you believe good actually so?

When you speak of your cousin dying at age seven I gather you see this as a bad thing. Bad in relation to what? What is the standard that you judge good and bad against? Is it relative and subjective, or fixed and objective? But without God, why is death so bad? It is just "Nature" running its course. So why are you making a big deal of it? Thus, once again, I see inconsistency coming from your position.

As usual, I wait with baited breath to see if you will answer my queries.

Topic's author

#1270

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

05.28.2021 08:34PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

Peter, you are running to the script again, but it does no good. It has already been shown that:

1. A fixed, unchanging reference point is not required to navigate through the world. Magnetic north is not fixed; the rules of chess are arbitrary - yet we can determine a good direction or a good move. The moral landscape is no different.

You have not shown a relative reference point can make sense of itself as anything other than brute force, Skep.

Once again, Magnetic north points to a specific location, TRUE North.

Once again, the rules of chess are specific to the game of chess. The reference point is fixed and objective. You can only move a knight in a specific pattern. You have to meet specific requirements for a checkmate. The endgame is different from the start. A position can be determined to be weak or strong in a number of ways. You would not have such a game without these fixed, unchanging rules.

The same goes for morality. Without a fixed and objective reference point moral good can mean anything and I can show you that it does. Thus, moral good loses its identity, a point you need to address. Good in relation to something is a specific thing. It can't be anything you want to make it otherwise it becomes meaningless.

You accused me in Post 970 of this:

"This is the third time you've responded to this post. Why are you trying to reset the conversation?! I mean seriously, if you can't be bothered to follow the conversation (which has moved well past this post), then why should anyone waste their time attempting to carry on with you?"

Why are you bringing it up again? I responded for one of three reasons, 1) because you also brought up the subject more than once or, 2) I did not feel I had covered it adequately or, 3) I lost track of where I was at. I also explained a while back that I was travelling back and forth to another city for cancer treatments for my wife. I could not devote much time to answering the posts which were piling up, especially those from Amoranemix who is extremely detailed. His posts alone take a lot of effort to respond to. I usually try to respond to everyone who addresses me, but I know I am 11 pages behind.

This is your Post 1231. I left on on Post 970.

2. You yourself cannot show you have a fixed, unchanging reference point:
If the god of the Bible were real, he would not be unchanging (unless he still condoned slavery, genocide, and a world absent rainbows). Plus, even if the god of the Bible were immutable, his existence can't be established.

Nope, you are suggesting the biblical God condones slavery. That is not the case, and I spent a great deal of time and effort to establish that with references to biblical text. I also showed how God used a nation to bring judgment on another for the evil done.

If the god of the Bible were not real (which I believe to be the case), you are relying on your own interpretation of the words of bronze-age humans - definitely unfixed and subject to change.

Nope. I am using hermeneutical principles and exegesis. I have had that discussion with you many times, and criticized you for eisegesis on the way you used "this generation," "this age," and the term "you" as well as other pronouns in a generic way rather in the specific way the text determined the use of the word. You are just a bad interpreter of Scripture and I made the point that those who judged our debate were just as guilty of neglecting the audience of address and the time indicators.

Your position crumbled at least 600 posts ago. Running back to the same beaten arguments/script won't resuscitate it.

Nope, it did not. I do not believe you adequately addressed the issues I raised. I just finished responding to Post 960 and have not witnessed what you are claiming. I believe you are just trying to create that narrative by innuendo and assertions, and in this day and age, many people are gullible to such nonsense as per the case of the Democrat Party in office by the same method of control and propaganda technique (a sign of the times, just like atheism being fashionable when its emperor is naked).

Topic's author

#1271

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

05.28.2021 08:44PM

-->

@3RU7AL

@zedvictor4

Lot's of people seemingly are convinced of the absolute truth of the bible, but how many actually follow all the Levitical Laws?

Post 967:

The Levitical laws, or the Law of Moses, was a covenant God made specifically with OT Israel. I have argued that OT Israel no longer exists in covenant with God because they can no longer follow the prescribed laws. For instance, they can no longer offer sacrificial animals for atonement by the priesthood because in AD 70 the priesthood and Levitical system of worship was ended by God. He destroyed the temple, the priesthood, and the feast days and atonement could no longer be preformed in the prescribed manner.

Jesus established a new and better covenant, an eternal covenant that was not conditional on the if/then works of OT Israel but on the grace of God.

I'm not even certain if it is possible to conform simultaneously to both, the necessities of contemporary society. and the necessities of all biblical requirements.

I would further suggest that save for a few extreme zealots, most theists are probably unwittingly or even knowingly hypocritical.

So...Would believing any of this actually CHANGE how you acted in-real-life?........No.

Topic's author

#1272

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

05.28.2021 08:54PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Post 973:

A revelation God supplies those values.
But even people who call themselves, "true Christians" can't seem to agree on what these (fixed standard) "values" entail.

I believe the Ten Commandments are something most Christians would agree upon, especially in the six that relate to our relationship to our fellow human beings:

1. Honour your father and your mother.

2. You shall not murder.

3. You shall not commit adultery.

4. You shall not steal.

5. You shall not bear false testimony against your neighbor.

6. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, wife, goods, or possessions.

These six deal with specific principles, including honouring others, telling the truth about others, harming others, greed, lust, stealing, and envy.

#1273

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,199

05.28.2021 08:56PM

-->

@PGA2.0

The Universe must have a cause if it had a beginning because self-creation is a contradiction in terms

See The Reason the Universe Exists is that it Caused Itself to Exist by Quentin Smith

Philosophers have traditionally responded to the question, ‘why does the universe exist?’, in one of two ways. One response is that ‘the universe exists because God created it’ and the other response is that ‘the universe exists for no reason—its existence is a brute fact’. Both these responses are inadequate, since a third response is possible, namely, that the reason the universe exists is that it caused itself to exist. There are at least three ways the universe can cause itself to exist, by (1) a closed, simultaneous causal loop at the first instant of time, (2) beginning with a continuum of instantaneous states in a first half-open second, with each state being caused by earlier states, and (3) being caused to exist by backward causation, where a later event causes the big bang to occur. This suggests that the principle, ‘if the universe begins to exist, it has a cause’ does not support theism (as traditionally has been thought) but instead supports atheism.

Topic's author

#1274

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

05.28.2021 08:59PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Post 979:

Although beauty is not a moral value, I would still argue that its ideal is God. He is again the fixed reference point.
Wait a minute, does this mean that all the most beautiful things in the world are mirror reflections of "YHWH"?

God is Spirit. Beauty reflects His Spirit. Kindness, goodness, gentleness, love, joy, peace, patience, faithfulness, and self-control. Those are qualities, not quantities.

Topic's author

#1275

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

Nothing | Definition of Nothing by Merriam-Webster

05.28.2021 09:36PM

-->

@FLRW

The Universe must have a cause if it had a beginning because self-creation is a contradiction in terms
See The Reason the Universe Exists is that it Caused Itself to Exist by Quentin Smith

Quentin Smith, no less, whoever he is, and why should I care?

[a] Philosophers have traditionally responded to the question, ‘why does the universe exist?’, in one of two ways. One response is that ‘the universe exists because God created it’ and the other response is that ‘the universe exists for no reason—its existence is a brute fact’. [b] Both these responses are inadequate, since a third response is possible, namely, that the reason the universe exists is that it caused itself to exist. There are at least three ways the universe can cause itself to exist, by (1) a closed, simultaneous causal loop at the first instant of time, (2) beginning with a continuum of instantaneous states in a first half-open second, with each state being caused by earlier states, and (3) being caused to exist by backward causation, where a later event causes the big bang to occur. This suggests that the principle, ‘if the universe begins to exist, it has a cause’ does not support theism (as traditionally has been thought) but instead supports atheism.

[a] Okay, one of two ways - God and therefore meaning and reason, or brute fact. Which makes sense? What is a brute fact?

"In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is a fact that has no explanation." [1]

If it has no explanation how can it be a fact? A fact is something that is established by evidence. A brute fact is just a term people use when they can't find an explanation other than the obvious --> God. How ridiculous that they go to such extremes. Instead of the obvious, they can't make sense of it. They don't like the explanation - God, so they choose to muddy the waters.

[b] "The universe can cause itself to exist,"

How is the third option adequate? It is self-refuting. Nothing can't create something. What is NOTHING? It is not a thing. Nothing would first have to exist before it was capable of doing anything. Nothing being something is a contradiction of terms.

1: not any thing : no thing

2: no part

Nothing

►

No thing; not anything.
No part; no portion.
One of no consequence, significance, or interest.

Suddenly you materialize three ways self-creation can happen, (1) the first being something vague and nebulous that you offer no proof. You create something outside the universe or materialize the universe yet again from nothing, but cannot or have not verified how this happens as anything but assertion. Is that more reasonable than God? (2) You have an infinite regression, which begs how you ever get to the present. (3) A later event caused an earlier event? It does not make sense.

#1276

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,731

05.28.2021 10:39PM

-->

@PGA2.0

Although beauty is not a moral value, I would still argue that its ideal is God. He is again the fixed reference point.
Wait a minute, does this mean that all the most beautiful things in the world are mirror reflections of "YHWH"?
God is Spirit. Beauty reflects His Spirit. Kindness, goodness, gentleness, love, joy, peace, patience, faithfulness, and self-control. Those are qualities, not quantities.

who made all the "ugly stuff"?

#1277

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,363

zedvictor4

05.29.2021 07:47AM

-->

@PGA2.0

@3RU7AL

Ugly is a decision, arrived at through comparison.

I was walking down a beautiful Scottish hillside and came across heap of scrap mental....The Rabbits that lived within, seemingly appreciated the eyesore more than I did.

As far as I am concerned, modern cities are ugly heaps of concrete and glass, but I'm certain that the residents within would not necessarily agree.

Ugliness is the unreason/reason of an individuals conceptuality, as are atheism and theism.

Depending upon ones assessment of data.....GOD is either non-sense or not.

And as I always say....GOD principle sound....Floaty about bloke not so.

Topic's author

#1278

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

05.29.2021 02:40PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Although beauty is not a moral value, I would still argue that its ideal is God. He is again the fixed reference point.
Wait a minute, does this mean that all the most beautiful things in the world are mirror reflections of "YHWH"?
God is Spirit. Beauty reflects His Spirit. Kindness, goodness, gentleness, love, joy, peace, patience, faithfulness, and self-control. Those are qualities, not quantities.
who made all the "ugly stuff"?

My take: Humanity in Adam chose to know both good and evil. When humans decided to do evil they were separated from the goodness of God and cast out of Eden. They were also prevented from living forever by taking from the Tree of Life. Life became worse by human choices because people did not want to retain the goodness and knowledge of God. With the Fall, God also imposed consequences for sin, yet He did this for a purpose. Death and decay is a reminder that we only have so long on this earth. Do we seek true meaning or do we manufacture our own? Our bad choices compound the problems we face with the curses God placed on humanity. You can read of the curses in Genesis 3. Romans 8 tells us that the creation (what is made) groans in expectation, waiting for the sons of God to be revealed.

18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the eagerly awaiting creation waits for the revealing of the sons and daughters of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, [n]in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23 And not only that, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons and daughters, the redemption of our body. 24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, through perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

So, you can see that Paul says the suffering experienced as Christians is nothing compared to the goodness that is to be revealed later in Christ's return. Christians have the hope that the rest of humanity does not. We are also told the creation was subjected to frustration for a purpose, "in the hope that creation itself" would be set free from this corruption by Jesus Christ. We see this corruption, we are reminded of it ever day, both in the actions of sinful human beings and their wilful disobedience against God, and in the corruption God subjected the creation to at the Fall. We are told that the creation groans and suffers the pain of childbirth, waiting for our adoption as sons and daughters. It is only in Jesus Christ that we find the freedom from such corruption and decay and are transformed by His sacrifice and share in His kingdom. It is a spiritual reality for the Christian that Christ Jesus has conquered death and restore the Christian to God.

Topic's author

#1279

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

05.29.2021 03:12PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Post 981:

You exclude that these claims can be true because you believe these ancient people cannot tell the truth or are not authorities in the matters they speak of and appeal to.
Well, it's not really so much that "they CAN'T be true" as it is that "the claims are unverifiable and NOT logically necessary".

Not verifiable in every case, but for the ones in which they are, they check out to be true.

Any assumed validity you lend to "The Bible" must apply equally to other ancient stories (like The Epic of Gilgamesh and The Vedas).

Nope. The logical consistency is greater for the biblical accounts. The information contained in the Bible is verified often by multiple sources.

The Bible is a collection of around 66 different authors that are internally consistent in the narrative about God and humanity.

Also, you might enjoy, [LINK]

Your link was blank/video unavailable.

#1280

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

05.29.2021 09:32PM

-->

@PGA2.0

It is also interesting that you suggest "belief in god" not the 'existence of God' is what gives lives meaning.
You must believe in God before meaning makes sense.

So, is that only your specific god or just any god in general? ...and how do you know god is not a meaning you've manufactured?

#1281

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,731

05.29.2021 09:50PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

So, is that only your specific god or just any god in general? ...and how do you know god is not a meaning you've manufactured?

LORD VISHNU GIVES MY LIFE MEANING.

#1282

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

05.29.2021 10:22PM

-->

@PGA2.0

You have not shown a relative reference point can make sense of itself as anything other than brute force, Skep.

So, a good move in chess (according to rules we made up) doesn't make sense? I think the problem is you have a particular answer in your head, and if someone doesn't agree then they must be wrong.

The answer I've given makes perfect sense.

Once again, Magnetic north points to a specific location, TRUE North.

If you're trying to equate "God" to "true north" you're undermining your argument while fortifying mine. True north is a point on Earth we decided was important.

2. You yourself cannot show you have a fixed, unchanging reference point:
If the god of the Bible were real, he would not be unchanging (unless he still condoned slavery, genocide, and a world absent rainbows). Plus, even if the god of the Bible were immutable, his existence can't be established.
Nope, you are suggesting the biblical God condones slavery. That is not the case, and I spent a great deal of time and effort to establish that with references to biblical text. I also showed how God used a nation to bring judgment on another for the evil done.

I supplied a plain reading of the text which has the god of the Bible condoning humans owning humans in perpetuity. We can either accept the words of the Bible OR human interpretations of the "Word of God". If there is a God, the first option is preferable...if there isn't a god, the first option is preferable. The second option is preferable when the Bible needs to fit in a particular human specified mold.

Good luck with that, brother.

#1283

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

05.30.2021 06:15PM

-->

@PGA2.0

I do not believe it is the case. I do not believe we could make sense of anything, ultimately, if this was the case. I believe it is impossible. Thus, prove otherwise. You know you can't.

Should I expect silence from my enquiry and questions yet again, as per usual?

I know you don't believe that's the case, I'm asking you to engage in a hypothetical. It can't be so vexing that you cannot even IMAGINE the circumstance, can it? I don't hve to prove anything, I'm just asking you how you think your life would be different if "life were just a freak of nature, an accident, happenstance." What would that mean to how you live your life?

Should I expect silence from my enquiry and questions yet again, as per usual?

No, you should expect the same answers. Watch:

Now, what would be the implications of existence without God? Anything goes. Why would you expect uniformity of nature, things to continue and be sustained? There would be no reason for these things happening.

Exactly. I don't see what the problem is.

For the atheist, why does anything exist at all?

Don't know. Explain why this matters.

I can't understand how there can be a reason because matter devoid of personal being is unable to reason. Thus, the atheist cannot make sense of existence.

So because you can't understand the other argument, yours must be correct: this is the literal definition of arguing from personal incredulity.

Thus, the atheist cannot make sense of existence.

Explain what this means and, crucially, why it's so critical: to make sense of the entirety of all of existence in order to make a conclusion other than yours. Yours makes no sense of existence either, you SAY it does, but it only adds "because of GOd" instead of "I don't know." All I'm asking you to do is demonstrate you're right. NOT THAT YOU DON'T THINK I'M RIGHT.

How would something unreasoning sustain anything? Why would the universe come into existence and how? And if you do, per chance, find a reason, why would you expect to in an unintelligent universe???

Don't know, don't know, and I don't expect to find reason in the universe. I make it for myself. There, all questions answered. Now answer mine.

Topic's author

#1284

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

05.31.2021 04:55PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

Post 1280:

It is also interesting that you suggest "belief in god" not the 'existence of God' is what gives lives meaning.
You must believe in God before meaning makes sense.

So, is that only your specific god or just any god in general? ...and how do you know god is not a meaning you've manufactured?

Because of the contradictory nature of different gods there can only be one true and living God. The Judeo-Christian God is the only God I defend against attack, not that He needs defending, but because the message is worth telling and gives meaning to the lives of those who will believe because of the message/His revelation.

Topic's author

#1285

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

05.31.2021 06:24PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

You have not shown a relative reference point can make sense of itself as anything other than brute force, Skep.
So, a good move in chess (according to rules we made up) doesn't make sense? I think the problem is [a] you have a particular answer in your head, and if someone doesn't agree then they must be wrong.

The game was designed with specific rules, whether you or I make up additional rules or not. You are not playing chess according to the long established rules if you do not follow the specific rules of the game (you're cheating or making up your own game). A good move is one that gains advantage and puts pressure on the opponents position and pieces.

[a] It is more to the fact that you have a specific answer in your head and if my reply does not abide by your subjective opinion you try to make black seem like white when the opposite is true. Conventional Chess is a game with specific rules. Each piece can only move in a specific fashion. A knight can only move two and one squares or one and two squares. A bishop can only move along its own diagonal. A pawn can only move one or two squares on the opening and then one square after that. The knight is the only piece that can jump over other pieces. A king can only move one square in any direction. The aim of the game is specific. A king must move to a different square once it is in check. Once the king is in a position where it is in check and it cannot move to any other square without being captured (checkmate), the game is over. The game is won when this happens. So, to play chess, you must follow the various rules. They are objective rules, not subjective. You must conform to the rules if you play that specific game.

The answer I've given makes perfect sense.

No. You are trying to dodge the obvious.

Once again, Magnetic north points to a specific location, TRUE North.

If you're trying to equate "God" to "true north" you're undermining your argument while fortifying mine. True north is a point on Earth we decided was important.

I like the analogies. I am establishing that there are objective references we can know. Magnetic north has to be based on true north, and true north is a specific location. You can't have a true North unless there is such a place, just like you can't have a city called London, England located in Sidney, Australia. If you flew from New York to London you would not land up in Sidney.

2. You yourself cannot show you have a fixed, unchanging reference point:
If the god of the Bible were real, he would not be unchanging (unless he still condoned slavery, genocide, and a world absent rainbows). Plus, even if the god of the Bible were immutable, his existence can't be established.
Nope, you are suggesting the biblical God condones slavery. That is not the case, and I spent a great deal of time and effort to establish that with references to biblical text. I also showed how God used a nation to bring judgment on another for the evil done.

I supplied a plain reading of the text which has the god of the Bible condoning humans owning humans in perpetuity. We can either accept the words of the Bible OR human interpretations of the "Word of God". If there is a God, the first option is preferable...if there isn't a god, the first option is preferable. The second option is preferable when the Bible needs to fit in a particular human specified mold.

I explained to you that God never condoned the type of slavery practiced in Egypt. The text you supplied has to be understood in relationship to what it meant in the ANE AND IN CONTEXT to Old Covenant Israel. What did slavery generally mean in the ANE? What type of situation were the people of that time were living in and experiencing in regards to slavery? The biblical God went above and beyond the situation that was considered normal in those times. God wanted to establish with Israel a standard that treated others fairly and with dignity and respect. Yes, there were consequences for breaking the Mosaic Laws. God was teaching Israel what it meant to be holy and pure as He was and that works based merit could never meet such standards, hence the need for the Saviour. Slavery in ancient times also presented a bigger picture, spiritually. It represents our slavery to sin and to things that have control over us.

You ignored the other side of the issue. God specifically said to Israel never to treat others as they were treated in Egypt. I explained to you that the type of slavery in Egypt was different from the type God spoke of and wanted practiced in Israel. I explained to you the ANE coed of conduct, as laid out by Glenn Miller and others. The kind of slavery or servitude in Israel was more contractual and like an employer employee relationship in which the worker lived with the family. The only difference was when a person captured in war. That person was required to make reparations. The discipline standards in the ANE were different than the standards of today. The kind of slavery in Egypt was the kind in which chattel slavery was practiced. God forbade such treatment of people. Period.

Good luck with that, brother.

Thanks for your platitudes!

#1286

Amoranemix

Debates: 0

Posts: 137

Amoranemix

05.31.2021 06:57PM

-->

@PGA2.0

@ludofl3x

PGA2.0 258 to secularmerlin
Sure it is good enough. As an atheist how do they get to a standard that is anything but arbitrary and changing?[81] How can good vary and fluctuate in respect to the same issue (and I picked abortion as an example in other posts)?[82] How do we identify 'good' when two different people believe the opposite is the case? Who is right then? How does that make sense, two people with opposite views on the same thing both being right? How can it?
Amoranemix 888
[81] [a] Most people get it from their [i] genes, [ii] education, [iii] life experience and the [iv] environment. [b] How do Christians get to a standard that is anything but arbitrary and fixed ?
[82] You really still don't know ? Try adopting a worldview based on reality i.s.o. on an invisible sky magician and it should become clear to you.
There are aspects of reality where you believe God is present. Therefore, learning of these parts of reality, how they work without God, would hinder your God-belief, which would be unacceptable. That makes them off limits to you. Hence explaining them to you over and over again has been and would stay being throwing pearls to the swine. That is a serious drawback of your worldview.[*] Atheists can incorporate real morality in their worldview, while you have to invent an invisilble sky magician to somehow generate morality.[**]

To illustrate something that you may have denied in the mean time : all of your moral claims and questions in that paragraph are ambiguous because they fail to include a reference standard. Ambiguity is good for confusion, the Christian's friend.[***]
PGA2.0 1018
[a] [i]How do genes transfer morality from one to another? [ii] Education [ . . . ] [iii] Life experience is again a subjective experience. [iv] How does the environment make something moral? Are you speaking of peer pressure or the actual physical environment?

[b] The Christian standard, for starters, is a reasonable standard and a necessary standard. It has what is necessary for morality, a necessary being of whom you are not.[512] Second, Christians come to faith in the biblical God who can make sense of morality.[513] Third, the Bible has reasonable evidence for its claims that are based on a higher being and what He says as being based on history.[514] Fourth, experientially we interact with the biblical God. We pray to Him and see answers to our prayers. We see situations arise in our life that show us God's providence and His protective hand upon us. Fifth, we get answers to life's ultimate questions that other worldviews are incapable of supplying. There are many more reasons, but how are those, for starters?

[82] I am asking from your worldview standpoint, not mine. Mine is clear

[*] Nice dodge!

[**] Your opinion does not equal reality regarding morality.

[***] Rubbish.[515] Ambiguity is the friend of the atheist.[516] I have answered almost every question asked to the best of my ability.[517]

[a] [i] They do not. Morality is an emergent property of groups of people. The genes determine talent and inclination, also the talent for moral awarenes. If you want to know the mechanism of gene transfer, watch some videos from professor Dave : www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaS0xNcAaWo

[iv] The environment does not make something moral. Peer pressure can play a role, but is only a small aspect of the environment.

Notice how I am able to teach you about reality thanks to my worldview based on reason and evidence.

[b, 512] Your fallacy of choice is the proof by repeated assertion. The truth of claims is independent from how often they are repeated.

[513] If he is omniscient, God no doubt can make sense of morality. His followers however, struggle with it.

[514] So you claim, but can you prove it ?

Your ways are actually subcategories of some of the ways I mentioned.

The mechanism for people acquiring/choosing moral standard you claim is interaction with God. Apparently, as you pray God tells you about morality. That is the only mechanism you mentioned. Presumably you are also being taught by the Bible.

Uncharacteristally, you did not ask me to prove my mechanisms (which scientists will confirm over yours), so I won't ask you to do the same.

My explanation is simpler though, as it does not require the addition of a supernatural entity.

[82] I doubt that at post 888 I had explained it explicitely yet in this thread, but with the information around the subject, you should have been able to connect the dots. You have said yourself : meaning depends on context and for subjective truth, the claimer is part of the context. Thus works reality.

In addition, I had explained you already in our debate on debate.org.

[*] That is a false accusation. Refusing to explain something that has already been explained and providing reason for the refusal so is not a dodge.

[**] I haven't claimed otherwise and neither does your opinion.

[515] If you are skeptical of my claims, that you have amply supported with evidence, then surely you have reasons why, unless your skepticism is irrational, which I would like not to believe.

[516] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

[517] Your fallacy of choice is missing the point. Forgetting to answer questions, although you have liberally done so in the past, is not what I have accused you of in this instance.

PGA2.0 258 to secularmerlin
[ . . . ]
Thus theism and Christianity are more reasonable than atheism in this aspect and others.
Amoranemix 888
Your fallacy of choice is the hasty generalization. Even if your claims directed at secularmerlin were correct, that would still not imply they are correct for all atheists.
PGA2.0 1018
Okay, you are dishing out fallacies with ad hom's now![518] Yours is the subjectivist fallacy.[519] Moral good is true for all people, not just your subjective mind, nor does your subjective mind make it good.[520]

[518] You make the accusation that I dish out fallacies accompanied by ad hom's, without backing it up. An assertrion is not true just because you make it. It must be demonstrated. Go ahead!

[519] Is that a fact of just your personal opinion ?

[520] You yet again omitted to mention the reference moral standard. You must be one of clarity's (the skeptic's friend) most fervent enemies.

PGA2.0 1021 to FLRW
[ . . . ]
Your conclusion does not follow. You assume that dogs and cats have morals. The out-of-the-blue conclusion brings in the foreign concept of morality from the rest of the discussion. Just because dogs and cats can get along, you assume they have morals. It could just as easily be that they know from instinct they must get along or get punished by their owners.[521] They associate a slap from their owner or the dog associates getting clawed by the cat as very painful, and the cat associates getting bitten by the dog as very painful. Since they are forced to live together, they gradually become tolerant of each other and displace the lack of dog to dog relationship to a dog-to-cat relationship, or in a pack of dogs, the cat becomes seen as one of them.[522] [ . . . ]

[521] Why could that not be morality ? From Merriam-Webster we have as definitions 'a doctrine or system of moral conduct' and 'conformity to the ideals of human conduct'. If we don't limit morality by definition to humans, you propose that the pets would be be conforming to the ideals of a system of family conduct. In other worlds, they would be manifesting morality.

[522] That their behaviour has reasons does not prevent it from being moral.

3RU7AL 1023
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
ludofl3x 1024
Agree...that's where I say "I don't know," and where PGA says "Jesus."

If you say you don't know then PGA2.0 can say out of context that you admitted you dont' know.

Theweakeredge 891
Morality doesn't matter, because you would have to prove that objective morality exists at all, which you haven't.
PGA2.0 1034
You can't call something moral unless there is a fixed standard for morality.[523] Different cultures, different groups, and different individuals believe opposite things about what is good. It begs who is actually right. Without an objective, universal, unchanging standard, morality does not exist.[524] What exists is preference.

[523] I think you understimate Theweakeredge's abilities.

Believing opposite things about what is good does not beg the question of what is right anymore than believing opposite things about what is beautiful begs the question of what is right.

[524] So you assert yet again. Yet again, prove it!

Theweakeredge 891
Everything lacks a fixed moral point that's demonstratable.
PGA2.0 1034
Then it is self-refuting since you have nothing solid/fixed/unchanging to compare the good with. It can mean anything a person wants to make it mean. [525]

Is that too a shifting point of view? Is that too just your personal opinion that cannot be backed up to an objective fixed reference point?[526] If so, why should I value it? How can you demonstrate something is 11.75" long unless you have a fixed scale and measurement. The same for the moral good?

[525] The best explanation for you repeating such tripe seems be : you know you don't have a case.

The argument you are implying seems to be the following :

P1. If X has no fixed moral point, then X has no fixed attribute to compare the good with.

P2. Therefore, the meaning of X can be anything someone wants it to be.

C. Therefore X is self-refuting.

It is understandable you never explicate that argument.

If you actually believed you had a case and kept your brain on (assuming the two are compatible), you would know that repeating your tripe won't convince the readers of this thread. You would also know these are rational people, vulnerable to reason and evidence. You would also know that a good argument constitutes evidence. You would therefore try to present a good argument.

[526] Dude, backing up isn't done to a reference point.

Topic's author

#1287

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

05.31.2021 07:26PM

-->

@ludofl3x

I do not believe it is the case. I do not believe we could make sense of anything, ultimately, if this was the case. I believe it is impossible. Thus, prove otherwise. You know you can't.

Should I expect silence from my enquiry and questions yet again, as per usual?
I know you don't believe that's the case, I'm asking you to engage in a hypothetical. It can't be so vexing that you cannot even IMAGINE the circumstance, can it? I don't hve to prove anything, I'm just asking you how you think your life would be different if "life were just a freak of nature, an accident, happenstance." What would that mean to how you live your life?

Hypotheticals are opinions based on something that has not happened. First show me that God does not exist. You can't, whereas I can give you reasonable evidence He does. Without His existence you can't make sense of life, as you admit below..."Don't know, don't know, and I don't expect to find reason..." The funny thing is, you do find all kinds of reasons. A worldview that doesn't know how we got here wants to pontificate what likely is and is not the case. That is how weak your position is. It does not have what is NECESSARY to make sense of existence. God is a sufficient explanation. Chance happenstance is not.

Should I expect silence from my enquiry and questions yet again, as per usual?
No, you should expect the same answers. Watch:

Now, what would be the implications of existence without God? Anything goes. Why would you expect uniformity of nature, things to continue and be sustained? There would be no reason for these things happening.
Exactly. I don't see what the problem is.

No problem? You exist but don't know why. Morals exist but you don't know why.

Regarding morality, the problem - anything goes. You just make it up as you make up morality. How can you say some things are wrong then if anything goes???????????????????????????????????????????

With uniformity of nature, why would you expect things to continue to be sustained repeatedly without intent or purpose behind their functioning? NO REASON, right?

For the atheist, why does anything exist at all?
Don't know. Explain why this matters.

It matters if there is real meaning. If not, it should not matter what anyone does. It would be just one biological machine operating according to how its DNA and environment determines it will operate. Why are you living inconsistently with that premise? Why does it matter when someone kills innocent human beings, or does it to you? If there is no moral absolute how can you say it is wrong in what one human being does to another? Because someone made up some arbitrary rules, yet someone made the the opposite rules? Which would be right is there is no fixed reference point? You lose the identity of what is right or wrong if everything is relative and changing. Will you admit to that or will you explain how two opposites can both be right and true. Go ahead.

I can't understand how there can be a reason because matter devoid of personal being is unable to reason. Thus, the atheist cannot make sense of existence.

So because you can't understand the other argument, yours must be correct: this is the literal definition of arguing from personal incredulity.

Please read my sentence again. I understand your argument. I just can't understand how you can justify or make sense of reason or morality when you peel back the facade of atheism and find out what makes it tick - relative personal opinion governed in the causal tree by chance happenstance. By virtue of reason, my explanation makes sense over yours. From necessary personal, intelligent, mindful, reasoning being comes contingent personal, intelligent, mindful, reasoning beings. And what do we witness? We witness person beings deriving their existence from other personal beings. So, as I continually point out, you are being inconsistent with your starting points. I am not. I can make sense of things because of where I start. You cannot.

Thus, the atheist cannot make sense of existence.
Explain what this means and, crucially, why it's so critical: to make sense of the entirety of all of existence in order to make a conclusion other than yours. Yours makes no sense of existence either, you SAY it does, but it only adds "because of GOd" instead of "I don't know." All I'm asking you to do is demonstrate you're right. NOT THAT YOU DON'T THINK I'M RIGHT.

It means that from your starting point, blind indifferent, random chance happenstance (as opposed to intentional mindful personal Being) nothing should make sense. There would be no reason for uniformity of nature, required in the scientific endeavour. Something happening over and over again in the same manner needs intent and agency. So otherwise. With chance happenstance there is no agency, no meaning, no purpose, no reason. Things just happen. It is counter intuitive to what we actually witness. Randomly rolling a dice a million times expecting the same result every time without them being fixed is absurd and you can't show me this taking place in the real world. Yet you expect me to believe this happens in "Nature," or that "Nature" directs such a process. You expect that given enough time (the magic ingredient) anything is possible.

Then, with cause and effect, what is the cause of the known universe if the universe began to exist? Explain that to me with something other than speculation. You can't. God is a better explanation. God makes sense. What you offer or have offered does not.

How would something unreasoning sustain anything? Why would the universe come into existence and how? And if you do, per chance, find a reason, why would you expect to in an unintelligent universe???

[a] Don't know, don't know, and I don't expect to find reason in the universe. [b] I make it for myself. There, all questions answered. Now answer mine.

[a] Exactly, you don't know, can't justify, and don't have what it takes to make sense of the universe, and you don't seem to care.

[b] It boils down to why are your subjective opinions valid (it is just one of a myriad), and if you don't know, don't lump me into that category too. God has revealed, otherwise I would be in your boat, up the river without a paddle at the mercy of whichever way others wanted to direct me for no good reason.

#1288

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

05.31.2021 09:40PM

-->

@PGA2.0

You have not shown a relative reference point can make sense of itself as anything other than brute force, Skep.
So, a good move in chess (according to rules we made up) doesn't make sense? I think the problem is [a] you have a particular answer in your head, and if someone doesn't agree then they must be wrong.
The game was designed with specific rules [...]

Again you argue my point - the chess we play today doesn't use the same rules as the first chess game. The rules are not fixed and we can still use them as a standard.

Once again, Magnetic north points to a specific location, TRUE North.

If you're trying to equate "God" to "true north" you're undermining your argument while fortifying mine. True north is a point on Earth we decided was important.
I like the analogies. I am establishing that there are objective references we can know. Magnetic north has to be based on true north, and true north is a specific location. You can't have a true North unless there is such a place, just like you can't have a city called London, England located in Sidney, Australia. If you flew from New York to London you would not land up in Sidney.

Ok, you're arguing things humans have come up with can be an objective reference? How do you think this is different that what I've been saying all along?

I supplied a plain reading of the text which has the god of the Bible condoning humans owning humans in perpetuity. We can either accept the words of the Bible OR human interpretations of the "Word of God".
I explained to you that God never condoned the type of slavery practiced in Egypt. The text you supplied has to be understood in relationship to what it meant in the ANE AND IN CONTEXT to Old Covenant Israel.

An all-knowing, all-powerful being is incapable of clearly communicating to humanity and needs his words for humans to be explained by humans?

#1289

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720