Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

secularmerlin

Better is a subjective term. It is only useful if we first have a reference point. If the reference point is human welfare then I believe my viewis "better" at promoting welfare. If the reference point is some possibly fictional god then until the god is demonstrate along with s ok me methodology for unambiguously (not subject to interpretation) determining the will of said god then even if it exists we are still all just guessing. If I understand your method properly it is very suspect specifically because it is subject to interpretation which allows subjective opinions to again enter the conversation.

PGA2.0 263

How can it be better if it is subjective? Better in relation to what???[83]

Well-being, in whose opinion?[84]

Human welfare in whose opinion, the woman who kills her unborn human child? How is that well-being for the unborn?[85] You selectively choose who you will apply wellbeing to. When food is short are you still going to be looking for the wellbeing of your neighbour? Look at the world around you and see how, in practicality or livability, this principle of wellbeing works in most countries of the world, especially socialist and communist atheistic states.[86]

[83] Your worldview is a serious handicap for understanding reality. In order to understand these things you must open up your worldview to it.

It can be better by meeting the definition of better described in the (omitted) standard. Better is a relation. Something is better than something else.

Well-being, in whose opinion?[84]

[84] Dude, ask clear questions.

Human welfare in whose opinion, the woman who kills her unborn human child? How is that well-being for the unborn?[85]

[85] Is that well-being for the unborn?

You selectively choose who you will apply wellbeing to. When food is short are you still going to be looking for the wellbeing of your neighbour? Look at the world around you and see how, in practicality or livability, this principle of wellbeing works in most countries of the world, especially socialist and communist atheistic states.[86]

[86] Look at the world around you and see how, in practicality or livability, God as a source of morility and justice in most countries of the world, especially in religious states.

FLRW

Remember that there were 19 million miscarriages last year also. Doesn't god know anything about quality control? Why did god use atoms and 10 sextillion suns to create one planet that life would finally form on?

PGA2.0 273

How many of those deaths are attributed to the individual and how they live that results in the miscarriage?

I don't know and I am not told why He used so many atoms.

Cool. Now I can quote you saying “I don't know”, totally out of context and completely misrepresenting what you meant. Just the way you like it.

PGA2.0 247

Sure you can make up meaning, but ultimately it means nothing.

ludofl3x 249

Yes, and....? So what?

PGA2.0 273

So you live inconsistently with what you know as true - you live a lie, you deceive yourself.

So do you, but your belief in the lie is stronger. You know the lie to be true.

ludofl3x 249

Or the stuff in the universe was always around in various forms, cycling from big bang to big crunch eternally.

PGA2.0 280

How do you get to the present universe from an infinite of universes? These universes coming and going? They do not all exist simultaneously. So what created the universe? What is this 'stuff' and how can it 'act' as an agent?

You can't have an infinite causality and get to the present causality, can you? Explain how it you think so

What relevance does any of that have?

First, it is off topic.

Second, suppose ludofl3x doesnt know, so what? [a] The only attempt at relevance I can see is that you are looking for evidence for the first premise of the God of the gaps argument: [b]

P1 Atheists can't explain how this or that is possible.

P2 God is responsible for everthing atheists can't explain.

C Therefore, God exists.

Officially, most Christians admit it is a bad argument, but they use it anyway, because it works. Why do you think it is that so many people still fall for it?

3RU7AL 254

[Complaint about God ordering the killing of women and children in Numbers 31: 15-18]

PGA2.0 287

I'm not sure if that particular verse teaches the killing of children (among the little ones), but and innocent life God takes (a life that has not committed sin and is not able to reason or yet be accountable) God will restore to a better place. Jesus taught the kingdom of heaven belongs to little children.

[a] Why would God need to restore the children to a better place? [b] Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard.

PGA2.0 287 to 3RU7AL

The point, there are explanations for why this happened.

The point is off topic. This is a debate about morality. Behaviours need not be explained, but justified.

PGA2.0 800

Then he goes onto an evolutionary account (27:57). That explains nothing morally. As I have pointed out many times before, why does what one being does as influenced by their genetic makeup, environment, and social conditioning need to be the same another being does.[171] The DNA makeup programs one to work one way and another with a different program? Remember, a descriptive order does not prescribe what should be, only what is.

PGA2.0 800

Human success, he says, is largely due to our power of cooperation (28:00).[172] What if a Hitler authoritarian, totalitarian type figure dictates what you do, and your future depends on being obedient (slaughter 11 million undesirables as he defines undesirable).[173] You have to concede then that killing these people is morally good for the larger group.[174] And with China, the majority gets even bigger but again is controlled in the hands of a few, the elites. [ . . . ]

PGA2.0 801

Milligan wants to relegate superiority to brain size and development.[175] I smell more elitism. He wants you to conform to what he believes, another shell game.[176] There is no substance in what he believes.[178] He thinks such a God as Christians worship is willing but unable to prevent evil (29:16 - 29:26).[179] But what about Millican's god - himself and humans as the measure?[180] [plaintive questions]

PGA2.0 801

Millican fails to understand that God has given humans a timeframe (their lifespan) in which they have a volition as to what they will do and decide, then judgment, so evil is answered by God.[181] Next, how do moral relativists like Millican (who pretends to be a moral realist) distinguish evil? Evil compared to what? Compared to what he likes or those in control like? Why is that right? Again, he puts the cart before the horse.

PGA2.0 801

With the evidential problem (34:09), Milligan falls into his own trap. There are so many different views on what is evil, and so many different governments vying for different ideas of what is good that the question needs to be answered by Milligan as to what is evil.[182] From his subjective mindset, why should I believe him? And yes, the solution to the problem of who is right is inferred by presupposing God, not by presupposing relative, limited human beings.[183] They don't have what is necessary for defining evil if they cannot produce an absolute, objective, unchanging reference point or measure..[184] And human history evidentially shows they can't. Thus, we can INFER they do not have what is necessary to make the correct determination.[185] God can and does.

PGA2.0 801

[ . . . ] That brings me to the final point, why do we seek meaning and purpose in a meaningless universe? No ultimate reason if you are an atheist. You live inconsistently with your belief system (no ultimate meaning). [ . . . ]

PGA2.0 801

Millican offers "two extreme solutions" to the problem of evil (38:00); God is not omnipotent, or God's goodness is a mystery. There is another solution; God allows evil, so that good will come of it. [ . . . ]

PGA2.0 801

And "the way God wants us to see the world" (38:56) is not how Millican implies. We must seek the good, do what is right, honour and care for others, punish wrong, not torture people or inflict evil upon them. Then he implies Godis a liar (38:10) and that we are truthful.

PGA2.0 801

And yes, this guy has such a poor understanding of God's justice that he continually misses the point (41:14). So far, with this guy (Millican), it has been one falsehood after another.

PGA2.0 801

With Millican's point, "Conjectures and Fictions," it is not true we, as Christians, have nothing to support the biblical claims. I have gone through those reasons often enough.[186] Prophecy, in conjunction with history, offers reasonable proofs/evidence. So does the internal consistency and unity of the Bible, and making sense of existence without God.[187]

PGA2.0 801

"The Vale of Soul-Making " John Hick's argument (43:30) neglects the warnings of the Bible that there are none (accountable) who are righteous.[188] His argument does not wash about an omnipotent God, just creating a morally perfect being. Such a being would be a robot, not able to think anything but what the Creator programmed.[189]

PGA2.0 801

Then Millican goes on about the same tired worn out arguments about God creating a too heavy stone for Him to lift (44:55) to show that theism is intrinsically contradictory. [ . . . ]

PGA2.0 801

Up to the 45-minute mark, IMO, the whole lecture was poorly justified.[190] Notice how Millican escapes without explaining how any of his four criteria*** are objective is beyond me. He just asserts it.[191]

3RU7AL 725

You can't just say "quantitatively or qualitatively" and pretend they're not OPPOSITE (mutually exclusive) CONCEPTS.

PGA2.0 801

You misunderstand my point. I agree they are different value standards, but both qualitative and quantitative are values. One is easier to verify by the mind in conjunction with the physical senses because the standard is empirical.

PGA2.0 812 to SkepticalOne

Again (and you did this in your debates too), you dehumanize the unborn, making it a bunch of or clump of cells rather than what it is, a complete human being, a separate entity from the woman, a unique, complete organism that directs its own grow from within. The analogy again fails since you compare apples to oranges, a kidney (an organ) with an unborn (a complete individual human being with its own kidneys and organs forming and growing).

PGA2.0 812 to SkepticalOne

There is a difference in moral obligation between a family member and a stranger.

SkepticalOne 806 about definition for moral relativism

Clear and concise would be nice.

PGA2.0 812

No universal, absolute moral values, but everything is open to interpretation and subjectivism. 'Good' means whatever a person, a group, a society decides it means.

PGA2.0

A good [chess] move is one that gives you the tempo and puts your opponent on the defensive by applying pressure and exploiting weaknesses.

SkepticalOne 806

In regards to morality, you said right could not be determined without an "objective moral standard". By that reasoning, the absence of an 'objective chess standard' would leave us unable to objectively determine 'right' chess moves.  Do you have an 'objective chess standard'?

PGA2.0 813

Again, you are equivocating and comparing apples to oranges.

3RU7AL

Have you managed to distill any moral AXIOMS?

PGA2.0 288

How do you mean? I believe I have.

I work from the principle of the Ten Commandments, which delves into most aspects of morality for it deals with what happens when someone wrongs instead of loves others. Abortion centers on the "thou shalt not kill/murder"principle. Abortion is a spiteful act that does not take into account the life of someone else but thinks of self. It is not loving.[87] All human life is created in the image and likeness of God. It is God's right to take human life since we are His creatures.[88]

God permits exceptions for civil societies to function. Wrongdoing - life for life; that would be equal justice. The exception to abortion is when the woman will die before the unborn is developed enough to save it. Then it is permissible to take its life because the death of the woman would be unavoidable and so would that of the unborn. At least one is saved, so it is the greater outcome of the two - one dead instead of two. When someone dies unintentionally, in the case of manslaughter, the intent is not to do harm (but sometimes it can be because of carelessness), but an accident results in death. That is not the same thing as malicious or spiteful intent - murder - that the commandment deals with.[89]

[87] So is rape. [a] Yet I don't see any prohobition against that in the Ten Commandments. From biological evolution point of view on the other hand, rape is useful, as it helps the distribution of the rape gene. No god is required for that.

It is God's right to take human life since we are His creatures.[88]

[88] How is that supposed to follow?

God permits exceptions for civil societies to function. Wrongdoing - life for life; that would be equal justice. The exception to abortion is when the woman will die before the unborn is developed enough to save it. Then it is permissible to take its life because the death of the woman would be unavoidable and so would that of the unborn. At least one is saved, so it is the greater outcome of the two - one dead instead of two. When someone dies unintentionally, in the case of manslaughter, the intent is not to do harm (but sometimes it can be because of carelessness), but an accident results in death. That is not the same thing as malicious or spiteful intent - murder - that the commandment deals with.[89]

[89] I don't see the Ten Commandments mention any of that. Is that just your personal opinion you use to fill the gaps in your moral axioms?

3RU7AL 294

Nope. Please explain.

PGA2.0 301

Words carry specific meaning when in context. From a context you can determine what is spoken of. If not, the author needs to make his meaning more clear. If you have not grasped the author's meaning, you have not understood what the author said or communicated.

What if the author fails to make the meaning more clear?

I sometimes debate a Christian who keeps throwing moral attributes around without specifying the referenced moral standard.

He assumes that when different people use the same word, like good or right, they mean the same thing. The author appears to want to sow confusion (the Christian's friend).

P1 Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence.

P2 If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

PGA2.0 815 to SkepticalOne

The person needing the kidney is usually a stranger, not related in any way. The unborn is the woman's biological offspring. The person is not violating the kidney recipient's bodily autonomy; rather, the Judith Thomson example is the opposite. The violinist or his doctors violate the donor's bodily autonomy by touching it and hooking up tubes without consent. The donor does not touch the recipient's body directly with his/her body, so the analogy fails here. [ . . . ]

SkepticalOne 739

9). Sex is not consent to pregnancy - addressed above.

PGA2.0 815

It is for it is indirectly understood that pregnancy may result.

SkepticalOne 739

You are arguing consent and rights in general are non existent when they cannot be understood? Can someone without the ability to understand right from wrong do whatever they like?

PGA2.0 815

That someone can if they have the mental ability to do right and wrong, but they will suffer the consequences of the wrongs from those who enforce the laws.

SkepticalOne 739

11). Most abortions occur by medication long before the ability to [1] feel pain or awareness has developed and [2] at least half of all conceptions end *naturally*-You're [3] attempting to poison the well with emotionality built on dishonesty and/or ignorance.  

PGA2.0 815

[2] There is a difference between what happens naturally and what happens by intent. The one we can't prevent, the other (intent to do harm) we can.

PGA2.0 815 to SkepticalOne

The question is whether what I said is true and whether you should be morally outraged or not in determining whether I poisoned the well, instead of just the label and false charge (well prisoner) to persuade others the well has indeed been poisoned when the water is still fine to drink.

SkepticalOne 739

As said before, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy - it is consent to share one's body with another who exists at that moment.

PGA2.0 815

That consent to share bodies may result in a pregnancy. If I consent to be a lumberjack, then I consent to the risks that may involve. It is up to me to be aware of the dangers involved.

PGA2.0  815 to SkepticalOne

Every one of your 14 responses is a weak, weak argumentation.

PGA2.0 745

Some label or call that framework moral conventions or moral norms. With such conventions or norms where two countries or two individuals oppose each other, then who is right? What then is the actual case?

3RU7AL 746

THE BIBLE DOESN'T SOLVE THIS "PROBLEM".

PGA2.0 818

Yes, it does, provided the biblical God exists and is who He is described as. It solves the problem in that it is a written testimony that gives a universal, ultimate, absolute, objective, unchanging, eternal, omniscient best or final measure and reference point to compare good and bad against.

3RU7AL 747

FACTS must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary.

PGA2.0 819

Again, how do you demonstrate the laws of logic empirically?[175] Until you can demonstrate the laws of logic are empirical and not abstract conceptual, your argument unravels on your claim that facts must be empirically demonstrated.

3RU7AL 747

This means they are always  VERIFIABLE.

PGA2.0 819

Only the ones we can verify. (^8

Many facts are not yet verifiable by human beings. The law of gravity was not verifiable until Newton demonstrated it. That does not mean it did not exist or was not operating. We did not know it.

3RU7AL 747

No "appeal to authority" needed.

PGA2.0 819

"Appeal to authority" is different from an actual authority. You can appeal to anyone as an authority. Just doing that does not make them one. They have to show they understand and are an expert on the subject matter in question.

3RU7AL 747

#2, even  (IFF)  we accepted the "commandments" as 100% "true"  (AND)  we tried to follow them to the letter (THEN) we still end up with a ridiculous number of loop-holes and unanswered (perhaps unanswerable) legal (and moral) questions

PGA2.0 819

What happens is we realize we cannot meet the standard because once we are guilty of breaking any commandment, we have wrongs not only our fellow human beings, beings who are also imperfect, but God who is morally good, pure, holy, and perfect.

Your fallacy of choice is : missing the point.

PGA2.0 758

Because God is love. Injustice concerns Him. [ . . . ]

3RU7AL 766

I've seen Christians do this before, but I still can't figure it out,

LOVE =/= PUNISHMENT

PGA2.0 834

A justice and righteous Judge would not be good and loving if He left a wrong unpunished.

If you loved and wanted the best for someone would you let them do something that hurt others then say, "That's okay." If you see Antifa go into your neighbourhood and burn down your neighbour's house after they have robbed it and beating them up would the loving thing be to do nothing? Or would it be loving to seek justice for a wrong?

FLRW 770

Have they considered what atheism is doing to the mind in closing itself to Inana, a Sumerian goddess of fertility and war?

PGA2.0 834

Who are they? If you mean Christians, they would agree that these false gods need to be shown for what they are.

3RU7AL 780

You can freely choose to go to any restaurant you wish.

However, if you go to one I don't like, I will beat you with a baseball bat.

PGA2.0 845

So, you feel it is morally permissible to beat someone up if they go to a restaurant you don't like. So morality to you is doing whatever you like, and if anyone interferes, you enforce your standards of like on them by using your bat. So someone who can use their fists or bats better than you is morally justified in beating your face to a pulp? Dog eat dog!

PGA2.0 845 to 3RU7AL

[ . . . ]

Now God's commandment not to eat of the tree of good and evil was morally good.[176] Since Adam was the only human being other than Jesus Christ not to be influenced by other people's choices (he was a blank slate), he chose to set the course of human history. He had the initial two inputs, God's commandment to him (before Eve was created) and Satan's counter through Eve to him - the two choices he was completely free to choose from. When Eve took of the fruit and offered it to him he made a bad choice.[177]

3RU7AL 780

Just pick the one you like best.

PGA2.0 845

I did, my gun in opposition to your baseball bat. You will do what I say, but you are "free" to choose! Weigh the consequences well!

3RU7AL 790

Oh, right, the biblical God who orders their followers to slaughter the children of non-believers.

PGA2.0 848

If God let Israel be influenced by other wicked nations that practiced child sacrifice and idolatry, Israel would not follow His good decrees and judgments. If those other nations in the Promised Land (which God owned) decided Israel was not going to stay in the land and decided to kill all the Israelites, then God's sworn plan of redemption in which the Messiah, [ . . . ]

As for the children, any innocent children would be restored to a better place by God - His presence. [178]

Your fallacy of choice is : missing the point. Read the post again without assuming that 3RU7AL was not being cynical.

You are hypocritical. If 3RU7AL is playing a might makes right fan, then you criticize him. If God is imposing his might makes right justice, then you defend him with excuses.

Yes, I can see that God would be upset that a baby was aborted so it couldn't die of starvation (3 million children in the world died of starvation last year) or get pediatric cancer. 

If I consent to be a lumberjack, then I consent to the risks that may involve.

You also failed to dispute or challenge 3RY7AL's #1 : Your allegedly moral facts are not empirically demonstrable, nor logically necessary.

SkepticalOne 303

I think you, and many people, overly complicate morality. We only need to agree on something by which to measure our actions. Your preference is god. Mine is well-being.

PGA2.0 331

Well-being in whose eyes? Your subjective eyes? No thank you.

His point exactly. You dislike well-being. He dislikes God. In the real world we all have our preferences.

PGA2.0 331 to SkepticalOne

How does that answer my question? You continue to evade my questions.

Read who is writing.

PGA2.0 331 to SkepticalOne

That is your subjective opinion. What makes that right or anything you say right since you have no objective standard of appeal. Why SHOULD (a moral imperative) I trust your subjective opinion since it appears that is all you have got? Your subjectiveness is what wars are fought over.

Religious wars are far more popular than subjectiveness wars.

PGA2.0 331

Abortion bad -abortion good - abortion bad again - abortion good again.

[a] Something you are missing is that in matter of abortion, almost everyone agrees on what has value, i.e. [b] they have shared preferences. [c] Both the rights of the mother and the life of the child have value. [d] The contention is about what has most value. [e] Almost no one is of the opinion that abortion is good. However, many people consider, i.e. are of the opinion, [f] that in some cases no abortion is even worse.

3RU7AL 306

You validate the moral codec of "YHWH"by using YOUR moral intuition.

PGA2.0 335

I validate them by pointing to a standard beyond myself that is necessary because it is fixed and unchanging. [92] Logically, that is what is necessary because the law of identity (A=A) falls to pieces if every subjective being has a different view on what is right and good.[93] So, it is self-evident for anyone who thinks about what is necessary. A subjective standard does not meet what is necessary.[94]

[92] That doesn't look like what you are doing. [a] You seem to be of the opinion that slavery is wrong, but the Bible appears to condone slavery. [b] So you torture the Bible to make it say what you want. With success. Now the Bible only rarely condones slavery and the slavery it does condone isn't that bad. *sigh of relief*

Moreover, you have so far been unable to demonstrate that being fixed and unchanging are necessary attributes for a standard.

[93] No, it does not. You have admitted yourself in post 301 a word's meaning depends on context. Hence one person may mean something different with the same word. So, if one person is saying “Trees are marpalent.” and the other is saying “Trees are not marpelent.”, then that could mean:

a) They are contradicting each other. In the real world it happens that people contradict each other. That is why that also happens in the worldview of skeptics, because, unlike you, skeptics base their worldview on the real world.

b) [a] Both persons do not mean the same thing with 'marpalent'. Hence, they would not be contradicting each other. You gave as example in post 301 how green can have more than one meaning. In our debate on debate.org, you said a few times that things can't be both right and wrong in the same sense, because you realize they could be [b] right and wrong in a different sense. But then you also realized that guarding term was underming your argument, so you stopped using it and assumed that the same word always means the same thing, thereby leaving reality and entering your fictional worldview, where there is room for God.

[94] A subjective standard is not supposed to meet what is necessary. My bycicle doesn't meet what is necessary, yet that doesn't make my bycicle wrong and it would be stupid to discard my bicycle because of that.

3RU7AL 306

And then you credit "YHWH"for gifting you the moral intuition you use to validate "the ten commandments".

PGA2.0 335

An objective standard is self-evident for morality. Without one how do you justify your OPINION is BETTER than that of anyone else?[95] Are you going to force your beliefs on others? How does that make it "better."

[95] [a]You seem to be assuming that one needs to be able to justify one's opinion to be better than someone else's. However, if I understand correctly, [b] you yourself are unable to justify your opinion to be better than someone else's. You certainly haven't done so.

[c] Notice again how you omitted to provide a definition or reference standard for “better”. You wouldn't want people to know what exactly you mean with “better”, would you?

PGA2.0 335

Furthermore, since [a] the Bible makes the point that we, as humans, are created in the image and likeness of God, we would have a consciousness that retains some of His goodness [96] (even while denying Him), but the problem is that the moral standard is garbled by the Fall and our subjectiveness without God

because we have no clear ideal we can mirror right and wrong against, just a dim reflection.[97] So, even to an extent, Hammurabi can reflect some of the standards of God without that close personal relationship. We see that Caan knew that killing (murdering) his brother was wrong. He hid from God just as Adam did when he took the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

[96] Is that hypothesis supported by evidence?

You like to ask how questions. Answer one yourself. How did God inscribe morality in our hearts?

[97] [a] So God messed up. Did he mess up on purpose or out of clumsyness?

3RU7AL 306

Any human can detect their own moral intuition without any assistance from a book.

PGA2.0 335

I would argue they are personal preference, not moral right, unless the belief reflects God's principles.

Then they would reflect God's personal preference.

3RU7AL 328

The same way you do. Moral instinct. Moral intuition.

PGA2.0 352

It is not moral instinct that I prove what is right and wrong. It is by the revelation of Another, even though we are created in His image and likeness, thus we too are moral beings. The thing is, without His revelation sin prevents us from doing what is right.[98] We want todo what feels pleasant to us or what we desire rather than what isgood.[99] And since the Fall, we are marred with sin. Thus, we thinkapart from God, making up our own moral values that are way too oftencontrary to His standard.

[98] [a] Right according to God's personal morality (GM), you mean. So what? [b] Why should people who don't believe in God and who dislike GM, want to do what is right according to GM? [c] That sin is preventing me from doing that, doesn't bother me.

[99] Indeed. [a] Biological evolution tends to generate animals that [b] couldn't care less about GM.

3RU7AL

The ten yamas are:

[ . . . ]

PGA2.0 352

Some of these are restated in the Ten Commandments. Others I disagree with. Finally, who is the authority who revealed them? Is such an authority almighty? If so, let's discuss that being.

So what if the source is not mighty enough [a] to your taste? I am sure God, were he to exist, [b] could smite all his competitors, but [c] not everyone likes might makes right morality.

PGA2.0 352 to 3RU7AL about the the 10 niyamas

Why is this guru sufficient?

Since when does a guru need to be sufficient?

Is being free your moral preference?

Individual freedom is impossible without the individual ability to freely generate their own food, clothing and shelter.

You say one thing but have no footing to prove it true. Why SHOULD I believe what you have to say?

You say one thing but have no footing to prove it true. Why SHOULD I believe what you have to say?

If you wanted proof, I am willing to go into the prophetic argument as to its reasonableness.

Individual freedom is impossible without the individual ability to freely generate their own food, clothing and shelter.

That is a big assumption; providing physical necessities makes you free. If your mind is not free, neither are you. Whatever controls you keeps you unfree. 

God knows all things. Thus, He has an objective knowledge of all things or, if you like, a real, true knowledge.

99.31% of all abortions are therefore performed for social or economic reasons

Chattel slavery is wrong. It was the standard of many ANE cultures but not Israel. God strictly forbade mistreatment of others except in the case of wrongdoing for the purpose of punishment and to teach a lesson.

This looks pretty dumb as a set up here. First, if everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, you'd now have the question of what explains the exisence of god. And P2 does not in any way follow from P1, it's a leap of leaps. You can replace God with anything and it has the same validity. I know, I know, you only argue for the god of th bible, which makes this argument correct in your view, but it will never move anyone who doesn't already believe as you do.  I' mean I'm not familiar with the rest of the argument, but on its face, this is not a very sound syllogism. 

3RU7AL 849

I usually read the first page of the topic and then skip to the end and read them in reverse order (I use "likes" to keep my place).

If the conversation is productive (and I hope this one is a good example) then the salient points should become compressed towards the tail end of the discussion.

3RU7AL 794

We have similar experiences and therefore understand similar words similarly.

My point is that even though we have similar understandings of some words, that doesn't mean that the  MEANING  of those words is "set-in-stone" (as you seem to believe).

PGA2.0 854

Think of what you are staying, will you?

Do words in context convey a specific meaning or not?

When you look in a dictionary, the possible word usages are given, the contexts in which a word is used one way or another.

PGA2.0 854 to 3RU7AL

You say no; words don't have meaning in a context that is set in stone. They can mean whatever a person wants them to mean. These dictionary definitions mean nothing. Thus, in your opinion, in those contexts, they can mean whatever the person wants them to mean.[179] Please note, I am not saying word meanings do not change over time.[180] I am saying that what words mean in context are defined and set until  a new meaning catches on; then, the dictionaries change/add to reflect and include the new contextual meaning.

3RU7AL 796

Only a fool would claim to know things that they don't have any way of validating.

PGA2.0 854

All evidence of origins is interpreted. No one was there to witness origins. No one can repeat the process of origins. The data needs to be interpreted. The evidence does not come with the phrase, "happened 13.8 billion years ago." So, depending on where you start depends on your thinking because ideas are built upon core beliefs. That is why atheist thinking is naturalistic and materialistic. They exclude from their thinking God or gods as a workable reason for anything. They try to analyze everything via nature, which, incidentally, I contend, points to God.

PGA2.0 781

Okay. Which opposing social norms are the true right? Are you saying that they both are?

ludofl3x 797

Neither are inherently "right."[a] They're just what we've agreed upon works for the species. As we dominate all resources on the planet, it's worked out well.[b]

PGA2.0 856

[a] Then your system of thought is irrational and illogical, as I have explained before. I don't think I can reason with you.

[b] Who agreed to? Are you arguing the fallacy of Ad Populum?

PGA2.0 857 to Amoranemix

I am going to have to break your post into sections. There is too much information to cover with one post, and your words all run together and make it difficult to read. Maybe you should check your copy apt. Somehow the information becomes jumbled together when you copy and paste. Please correct that for further communication.

PGA2.0 857

Also, we have had long discussions on Debate.org (in some cases over a thousand posts) in which nothing was accomplished because you swamped me with more than I could handle in each post, a habit we are both guilty of doing. (^8

SkepticalOne 814

It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.

PGA2.0 860

You are comparing apples to oranges again. How is chess a moral issue unless I cheat?[181]

The fixed standard is too complicated for us to know every possible outcome. We would have to think countless moves ahead to determine the best outcome for every move.[182]

Amoranemix 798

[1] You are the one putting all youreggs in the basket of a mythical, invisible sky magician. SkepticalOne is open to anything supported by evidence.

PGA2.0 864

Thanks for your assertion and opinion.-

Are you speaking for SkepticalOne now?

Amoranemix 798

[2] Why would that [skeptics putting all eggs in basket of mythological naturalism] be? Skeptics follow the evidence, wherever it may lead.

PGA2.0 864

Because they dismiss God or gods, therefore they look for explanations in the natural realm.[182] They are left with mindless naturalism.

Skeptics follow their worldview presuppositions. No one is neutral.

PGA2.0 in OP

Atheists, as people who have thought about existence, often make the claim that Atheism is an absence of belief in God or a deity. Does that argument work?[3] I say no. I could claim theism is a lack of belief in atheism or an absence (not the presence) of the denial of God or gods.[4] In either position, both the atheist and theist hold lots of beliefs about God or the lack thereof. An atheist not believing in God as Creator would have to believe something else as there cause, yet something about God too in their denial of Him.[5] You can't deny something you have no idea of and SkepticalOne definitely has views about God. Thus, atheism is a worldview.[6] It examines life's most basic questions and comes to a conclusion from a standpoint lacking God.[7] It is a belief system in its own right usually with philosophical or methodological naturalism as one of its cornerstones or core tenants.[8] But is atheism as justifiable or as reasonable as a belief in the biblical God? I plan to examine this in a number of areas. This topic is about one area of atheisms reason - morality. Can atheists reasonably justify morality in comparison to Christianity/Judaism?[9] That last statement is a nutshell of the topic of debate.

Amoranemix 798

[3] A claim is not an argument.

PGA2.0 864

The argument is that atheists have thought about existence and God or gods displayed when they say something about such a being.[183] The argument is that atheists make claims such as atheism is an absence of a belief in God or gods (some other deity). I have heard atheists say such things. How do they know God does not exist? They don't; they assume it.

Amoranemix 798

[4] I could say a cup of coffee is the lack of the absense of a cup of coffee, but I prefer not to complicate things.

PGA2.0 864

Okay? So what?[185]

When claiming something, it needs support, reasons. I have given lots of reasons. I say the atheist denies God/gods, but their initial presuppositions by denying God are not reasonable.[186] As simple as that. And I have gone into depth on that in several areas, including this topic.[187]

When you deny nothing, then what exactly are you denying?[188] The atheist who denies God, what exactly are they denying?[189]

Amoranemix 798

[5] That doesn't follow. He or she can be agnostic on the issue. However, most atheists believe that nature did it and indeed, no atheists knows everything about it, which, in the atheistic worldviews, is to be expected.

PGA2.0 864

What does not follow? What issue - God?[190] Even being agnostic, the unbeliever looks to a naturalistic framework for the reasons of existence, as you confirm.[191]

Yes, not knowing all things is to be expected from limited subjective beings. Thus, looking for a purely naturalistic explanation has no guarantees, but if God exists and is revealed as per the Christian framework, we can know it as a certainty.[192] So God, once again, has what is necessary for certainty.

Amoranemix 798

[6] That doesn't follow. Atheism is an attribute of worldviews that lack a deity.

PGA2.0 864

They understand the God they deny while claiming there is evidence for Him. They refer to the Bible, which says it is God's revelation to humanity. They also treat Him as a real being, claiming that God is unjust and immoral. How can a non-existent being be unjust and immoral?[193] They hate this God? Why are they hating a non-existent being?[194] So, their worldview is inconsistent.

Amoranemix 798

[7] What are those life's most basic questions atheism examines and reaches conclusions from?

PGA2.0 864

Atheists answer the same question religious believers do.

What exists? (Metaphysics)

Atheist: Nature, the universe. [195]

Christian: The natural and supernatural.

What am I?

Atheist: We are a biological bag of atoms, a living organism. [195]

Christian: I am a creation of God with a physical body and spirit, a living soul.

Who am I? (Identity)

Atheist: A highly evolved animal that traces a common ancestry back to a singled celled ameba. [196]

Christian: A special creation of God, made in His image and likeness, different from animals, created to their own kind.

Why am I here/why do I exist? (Ontology)

Atheist: Without God or gods, you are a cosmic accident, and there is no reason for your existence. [196]

Christian: God made me for a purpose. I am here for a reason.

How do I know? (Epistemology)

Atheist: Through empirical verification, I can know. [195]

Christian: God has revealed, and we have been created in His image and likeness. Thus we are capable of reason and discovery. When we think His thoughts after Him, we truly know something. The natural universe displays His mighty power and reveals Him further. Thus, we think His thoughts after Him. We discover laws; we see beauty and order; we find self-evident truths.

What difference does it make? (Axiology)

Atheist: Nothing, ultimately. The universe is meaningless, and we pretend there is meaning by making it up for a short period of time, then return to the meaningless void of nothingness where nothing matters.[196]

Christian: We were created for a purpose, and if we find that purpose, we find true and everlasting life with God.

What happens to me when I die? (Destiny)

Atheist: I die. I cease to exist.[195]

Christian: If I believe, I live with God as a joint heir with Christ forever where the joy I experience eclipses anything else I have ever experienced.

Amoranemix 798

[8] I think that is more what you would want it to be than what it really is.

PGA2.0 864

Why should I believe you? How reliable is your mind in determining what really is?

PGA2.0 OP

Can atheists reasonably justify morality in comparison to Christianity/Judaism?[9]

Amoranemix 798

[9] Is justify the right word, or do you mean explain?

PGA2.0 864

Yes

Definition of  justify

transitive verb

1a: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable trying to justify his selfish behavior I shouldn't have to justify myself to them. Justify the ways of God to man— John Milton

[other definitions]

I use it in the 1a sense here.

Amoranemix 798

If I understand correctly, you are unwilling to have your worldview examined the same way as the atheist's worldview, correct?

PGA2.0 864

Where did you gather that conclusion from? The purpose of this thread is to find which of the two worldviews better explains morality.

PGA2.0 864

I conclude both from the Christian worldview and by the lack of explanatory power of other worldviews. Once God [or gods - necessary being(s)] is denied, you would fall on the sword of naturalism and chance happenstance as the root cause of your existence. By following the causal tree to its roots, you find that an atheist cannot justify what they have built their beliefs upon. It is not reasonable, and it does not make sense.

PGA2.0 OP

First, what is the origin (reasoning the chain of events back to its furthest point possible) of moral conscious beings?[10] Is such a causal factor intentional (thus mindful) or random, chaotic?[11] A personal Being who has revealed Himself as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal would have what is necessary in determining what is moral because there would be a fixed measure or reference point in which a comparison can be made as to 'the good' (since there is a best).[12]How does SkepticalOne arrive at best? What is the ideal, the fixedreference point? That necessary Being is reasonable to assume sincewe only witness or observe moral mindful beings deriving theirexistence from other moral, mindful beings.[13] With atheism (no Godor gods) what is left for the origins of morality and beforethat conscious beings? I say it is a blind, indifferent, mindless,random chance happenstance.[14] How is that capable of anything, letalone being the cause of moral mindful beings?

Amoranemix 798

[10] I am sure you are superficially familiar with the story. In a nutshell : Big Bang, inhomogeneity, separation of fundamental forces, inflation, dark matter, gravity, first generation stars, possibly second generation stars, formation of the solar system, the goldilock zone, comet strikes, organic molecules, appearance of life, cambrian explosion, first social animals.

And no. I don't know all the details perfectly, which is perfectly consistent with my worldview.

PGA2.0 871

[a] Just like you?

So, somehow organic molecules happen from inorganic matter and become conscious of their environment? They develop eyes, and hands and everything needed to interact with this chance universe. How does that happen, and where have you ever witnessed it happening? What you propose is great in theory, but it is not experiential. It takes great faith to believe these things.[195]

PGA2.0 871

[b] Big Bang - That means you support a beginning to the universe. Why did it happen?

Here is “The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument” for the existence of God as put forth by William Lane Craig and others:

[the argument]

Amoranemix 798

[11] Or could it be neither?

PGA2.0 871

I'm listening. What do you propose?

Amoranemix 798

[12] Moral according to who?[*] Does it have what is necessary to know what is moral according to itself ?[**] What a great achievement ! Adolf Hitler also had what is necessary to know what is moral according to himself, despite him lacking of a fixed reference point. Kim Jong Un as well.[***]

And while you are at it, that best that there is, is best according to who ?[****]

PGA2.0 871

[*] Already explained above. There is only one Being who fits the mould.

[**] "It?" With a being who is good and knows all things, why not?

[**] I certainly hope you are not serious with that statement, just being facetious?[196] No, Adolf Hitler nor Kim Jung-Un do not have what it takes, what is necessary. They are subjective, relative, limited human beings.[197] Why are they right?[198] First, they do not have to exist for there to be morality.[199] People were making moral judgments long before they existed. Second, morality has to be based on a 'best' for comparison[200]; otherwise, it is relative, and the moral good can be whatever anyone wants to make it.[201] Thus, it does not pass the logical consistency test or that of the laws of logic.[202]

[****] Best in light of God, the ideal, the measure, a necessary being who knows all things and is benevolent by nature.

Amoranemix 798

[13] How is that supposed to follow? Please elaborate your argument.

PGA2.0 871

What part?

PGA2.0 871

Moral beings the causal agent in producing more moral beings? First, morality is a mindful process. It requires conscious, living, intelligent beings to ponder such abstract things. Second, all we ever witness is the conscious moral agents giving birth to other such beings. We don't see them arising out of inorganic matter.

PGA2.0 OP

Second, how do relative, subjective beings determine anything other than preference - what they like? IOW's, why is your 'moral' preference any 'better' than mine?[15] Is it more reasonable? I say no. It does not have what is necessary for morality. Preference is just a like or dislike. What is good, morally speaking, about that?[16]

Amoranemix 798

For example, with a ruler, I, a subjective being, can objectively measure the length of a table. Can you not do that ?

[15] Define 'better'.

[16] Good according to who ?

PGA2.0 864

[15] Morally, of superior quality, more excellent than what is good.

PGA2.0 864

[16] Precisely! If morality is relative to the person or group holding the belief, what makes what you like, your personal taste, good?[203] It just is. Your liking ice-cream is not something I must like. You are not going to convince me abortion is good because you like it as a choice for women in the same way you will not convince me it is good to kill innocent human beings, of which the unborn is. If you think it is good to kill innocent human beings, would you willingly allow you and your family to be the next ones to be killed?[204] The point: you can agree to many things, but you can't live experientially with such thinking.[205] Justice must be equally applied for something to be just. Equality must be applied for all, or else there is no such thing operating.[206] Once you make a law that discriminates and dehumanized one group of humans (i.e., Hitler with the Jews; abortion with the unborn human being), there is no longer fairness there (it becomes unlivable for whoever they want to villanize).   Furthermore, such thinking does not pass the logical consistency test.[207] Good = Good. Good has a specific identity.[208] What is good cannot at the same time be bad regarding the same thing.[209] Good, then loses its identity. It can mean anything depending on who thinks it (moral relativism and postmodernism, in which all values are deconstructed and rebuilt).

SkepticalOne

I believe you are making a category error. How are evaluations of chess actions and evaluations of life actions fundamentally different...other than you saying so?

PGA2.0 872

No, you are making a categorical error.

One set of evaluations has to do with what is (the descriptive), the other with what ought to be (the prescriptive). [ . . . ]

PGA2.0 OP

Please take note of the difference between qualitative values and quantitative values. I describe what I like. That is, I do not prescribe what I like as a must that you like it too. I like ice-cream is a personal preference. I do not force you to eat it too as a moral must. If I liked to kill human beings for fun and believe you SHOULD too, that would be a moral prescription, although not established as an objective one. The words 'should,' 'must,' or 'ought' denote a moral prescription.[17] No one will condemn me for my preference of liking ice-cream but they will in my preference for killing others and prescribing others should like it too. That is because there is a distinction between what is (liking ice-cream) and what should be, a distinction between the two that has been called the is/ought fallacy. There is no bridge between what is and what ought to be in that one is a mere description of what is liked or what is while the other is what should or must be the case.[18] Whereas I believe I derive my moral aptitude from a necessary moral being, you believe you derive yours from chance happenstance. How is that more reasonable? Am I missing something here?

Amoranemix 798

[17] One should, must or ought according to a standard or goal. In case of moral prescriptions they refer to a moral opinion or standard.

PGA2.0 878

Which standard or goal???[210] You forget the goal MUST reflect the good.[211] A moral opinion or standard??? Whose???[212]

Why are your goals any better than any other? Nothing, unless there is an objective, universal, fixed and unchanging reference point.[214] What is that?