PGA2.0

-->

@Envisage

Lemme try.

Origins of:

1) existence
The sentence of "origin of existence" makes no sense. Something either exists or it doesn't.
How things come to be then.
Again I have problems with the term "come to be".

I get it. I understand what you are saying. Yet things come to be all the time. We witness a new life, a new existence coming to be. I'm asking you how did existence come to be? There are a cause and effect. What caused the universe?

Time began if there was a beginning. If not it is meaningless to speak of time in eternity. In this physical universe, if that is all there is, materialism/empiricism, there can't be a time before the beginning, if you believe the universe began and if you are looking to explain everything physically. So what you seem to be preaching is self-creation - something coming from nothing or an eternal universe or multiverse. Explain your origins. Is the universe eternal or did it begin?

I imagine this question makes perfect sense in your head, either that or you are not articulating your thoughts very accurately.

Yes, it does. We witness the beginning of things all the time. Is there a point we can trace that back to or is the universe eternal? I'm asking for your explanation for the origin of life and the universe, and explanation for their existence.

If your question is "How have all things that exist have come to exist as they are today?", that question makes sense, and I can try and answer it.

Is that not what I said? How did origins come to be? How did the universe come to be? How did existence of life come to be?

If you believe that empiricism or materialism is all there is (i.e., no eternal Creator) - things - then how did they come to be if they had a beginning?

if your question is "How/why does anything exists at all?" that that question also makes sense, and again I can try and answer it.

Yes, if you think there is a reason then how and why and you seem to suggest you have an answer? I'm interested in the plausibility of it. Is that not what I have been asking all along, for you to make sense or give the most reasonable explanation if you think God is not it.

But if your question "what is the origin of existence?" then that is incoherent to me, I do not understand what you are trying to ask, since it seems to me you ae treating "existence" as a type of "thing" that can be talked about in the same way as a statue, or a tree.

If your explanation is empirical then existence has to be explained in terms of the physical.

If you want me to talk past you than I can try in futility to answer the question in its original form and fail as anyone else here has tried to.

It is a two-way street. That is why we question what others mean. You are just as guilty of stringing me along and hiding in semantics.

2) The universe
Don't know. Can freely speculate, but don't know.
If you don't know then what is more reasonable to believe? What view is able to make sense of existence. What view is more reasonable in making sense of the universe?
Define "view".

I assume you mean "the view with a god, or the view without a god" and I am happy to answer that if that if what you are asking.

Worldview, the way you look at life and existence of it and the universe and what you build upon to explain such things.

3) life
Don't know. Can freely speculate, but don't know.
The what is more reasonable to believe. Explain what you believe and let's take a look at the reasonableness.

I already stated I believe I don't know. Do you want to rephrase your question more explicitly (I assume it requires similar phrasing to=== Q2) so I can answer it more to your satisfaction?

And I have explained that if you don't know then how do you know your explanation is more reasonable than any other? Can you say that empiricism from chance happenstance is more reasonable than creation? When you deny God what do you have left??? You no longer have intentionality. You no longer have an ultimate purpose. You no longer have reason coming from a reasoning and necessary being.

Note that I would normally be more charitable in discussions and not request rephrasing, but I assume we have very different terminology, culture and viewpoints, and it would all too easy for me to say something that doesn't answer the question as you envisioned it in your head.

But of course!

4) logic
Humans developed it.
So, without human beings, there would be no such thing?
Note that when I speak of logic, I think of formal axiomatic logical systems, such as those used in mathematics, or rules of inference etc.

Then how do you explain, without a Creator that is, that we can explain how the universe works via mathematical and logical principles that are not physical in themselves (grasp hold of twoness, show me the laws of logic). We discover these principles, we don't invent them. They have their existence before you existed or I existed. Thus, it is much more reasonable to believe a necessary, eternal/outside of time, Being is responsible for them rather than chance happenstance.

I see no reason why other species or aliens couldn't develop logic themselves.

That just takes the step back further. How did these aliens or other beings get to be? Are they eternal? Are you saying they are our creators? Are they the creators of the universe? Do they then exist outside of time? What is the reasonableness of your evidence? Do you have any? Is it more reasonable than the biblical God? I say no. Give me your proof/evidence if you believe this. If you have none then my evidence is more reasonable.

I assume your question is better rephrased as:
"So without beings to reason, there would be no such thing as logic?"

To which I answer "Yes". Since logic doesn't exist as a thing outside of the mind.

How does reasoning begin from something that was devoid of it? We agree it needs a conscious, mindful being.

Now, logic is not dependent upon you but it is dependent upon thinking being. Without God (i.e., materialism or empiricism) how does something that is non-living, non-conscious, develop into something that is and is this more reasonable to believe than logic comes from an eternal necessary Being?
You do realise that logic systems with completely different axioms to those we commonly use in math etc. can and have been developed that have zero application or relevance to reality as we experience it right? You can even have entire mathematical systems that are inconsistent. The systems and axioms are wholly dependent on thinking beings.

Completely different? How would you differentiate without using the laws of logic - the laws of identity, non-contradiction, or middle exclusion? Both require mindful beings to be known. Why do we find principles that explain our universe that we can express by mathematical formulas? These principles seem to be before we (humanity) came to be or do you disagree? How reasonable is that last statement, in your opinion?

5) truth
The sentence of "The origin of truth" makes no sense. either something is true or it is not.
Okay. Is truth mind-dependent? Does truth depend on being or is there such a thing as truth without "being" to perceive it? If truth has its origins from beings you still need to jump the hurdle and develop how conscious beings come from physical matter devoid of consciousness. If truth is not an abstract mindful process then it cannot be known or explained.

And when I speak of truth, I speak of the truth of origins. How do you know your view of origins is what corresponds to reality unless a necessary mindful Being has revealed origins?
This falls into the same category of thing as Q4. So redress these arguments to that.

Addressed. The laws of logic would have to be prior to those of mathematics for us human beings to do and understand mathematics.

Truth falls under epistemology, and a lot of that will depend on your view of logic systems, which define within themselves "true" and "false". To state there is "truth" outside of imaged systems such as logic makes zero sense to me, thus #4 should be addressed first.

Number 4 answered. You can't do mathematics without first having these basic principles of logic.

Beginnings, origins, the existence of first life is something neither of us was there to experience. The truth of such things must be explained in one of a few ways. I argue they come down to two explanations - we are here because of a Creator or we are here by blind, indifferent chance happenstance. Again, which is more reasonable to believe for you? Once you identify we can examine how reasonable the one you choose is.

6) morality
Nihilism works fine as a meta ethical theory. Describing human behaviours and what human behaviours people would generally most prefer I don't categorise as morality. If you do though then I encourage you to read "Sapiens: A brief history or humankind" for some good speculation.
Develop that nihilistic thought. What do you mean?
There is no such thing as inherent right or wrong on any level. They are all imagined orders/realities.

So, you do not believe in self-evident truths, like the laws of logic or for there to be equality for justice? Right and wrong are qualitative values. What is your starting point for qualitative values? Is it the human mind? Which human mind(s) since we are relative beings? If you do not have a "best" or ultimate unchanging ideal to compare right and wrong to then how can you ever arrive at better? Better in relation to what? Do you just arbitrarily choose something you like and call it right?

Neither do I classify behaviour as morality for the following reasons: How does an 'ought' come from an 'is.' A behaviour is. It is a description of something taking place. A preference is a "like," a personal taste. I like ice-cream. Does that mean you SHOULD like ice-cream too?

"Ought" is defined within whatever imagined order you subscribe to. I do not subscribe to any, so asking me how "ought" comes from an "is" makes no sense, since "ought" makes no sense outside of an imagined order "such as a religious order, but certainly not exclusive to a religious order".

I'll have to work around that statement to find out what you mean. Imagined order? That would not really be the case. Does that mean there is a case in which it would be?

The Nazis subscribed to the imagined order that it was right to kill Jews. They don't like the Jews so they prefer to kill them. Kim Jong-Un subscribes to the imagined order that what he prefers is the right. Because he believes it, it IS what he likes, you ought to also. If not, off with your head! It is not his personal like that you like the opposite of what he likes. Abortion advocates subscribe to the imagined order that it is right to kill innocent human beings. They like to choose to kill or not to kill innocent human beings so you should too.

The problem with moral relativists is they cannot recognize right. Everything is shifting. They have no fixed measure.

What do these examples have in common? I would say they are all preferences, a personal taste, what IS, what someone likes. How does that make them right? (right meaning what everyone should do, what the ought to do)

What do the three examples share in common? They turn description (something that is observable, a physical behaviour) into a prescription (an intangible) thus violating the is/ought fallacy. How do you cross that bridge?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@PressF4Respect

There were many interesting things in your thread, but the one that stood out the most (to me) was this:
Yes, Adam's choice was predetermined. God knew Adam would eat. God had a plan for Adam eating the fruit. God allowed Adam the choice of eating or not eating. It was Adam's choice. Adam chose. We are influenced by Adam's choice. Now we too understand good and evil. We understand what it is like to do evil. Adam did not understand this until he ate.
If Adam's choice was predetermined, then was it really his choice to eat?

Adam was a blank slate. He had never sinned. His nature had not been affected by sin. He heard both sides - God's and Satan's. He knew and witnessed only good until the day he ate of the fruit. Then his eyes were opened. He then did and understood evil. God predetermined to give Adam a free choice. He never stopped Adam from choosing. God sees the past, present, and future so God knew Adam would sin and disobey Him. That does not necessarily equate to God made Him sin. That can equate to even though God knew Adam would sin God predetermined to let Adam sin.

James 1:12-14 (NASB)
12 Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.

God designed trials for a purpose but God does not tempt us to do evil. Satan did that. He tempted Eve to do what God said was wrong. What was God's purpose? It was for human beings to love Him not because they were programmed to love Him but because they wanted to know Him. So God demonstrated His love for humanity and that is best seen in His Son and the Son's giving His human life that they would be restored to God. Adam disrupted that fellowship with sin. Jesus restores that fellowship in reconciling humanity to God - those who will believe in Him.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Please could you give me notification that you have responded to my posts? I almost missed this one.

[A.] He was the federal head. [B.] Thus, he represented Eve and us in his decision.
A. That status of "head" as you have put came AFTER and not before. I pointed this out above.

"and he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16

1) The principle of firstborn as having preeminence is prevalent throughout the Bible.

2) God gave Adam the command to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge for when he did he would die. That was before Eve was formed.

3) The biblical principle is to speak of the man, not the woman as the head.

Genesis 5:1

[ Descendants of Adam ] This is the book of the generations of Adam.

Genesis 5:3

When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.

Genesis 5:4

Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.

The family line is usually traced through the male lineage.

4) God gave Adam the task of naming the animals and his helper, showing that she had a subordinate role under him as the head. The woman was a helpmate suitable for him. Notice the order, "for him" not "for her."

Genesis 2:16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”
18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones,

And flesh of my flesh;

She shall be called Woman,

Because she was taken out of Man.”

5) The sin is accounted to Adam, not Eve sin he was the federal head, not her.

Job 31:33

“Have I covered my transgressions like Adam, By hiding my iniquity in my bosom,

Hosea 6:7

But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.

1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Our sins are attributed to Adam as the head or representative. He is the first Adam. Jesus is also the federal head of all those who did not fall like the first Adam.

1 Corinthians 15:45

So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Over and over the man is given the prominent role, even naming the helper woman.

B. Stop making things up. There is no biblical reference or evidence that Adam had, or was given any type of authority over Eve, before the"knowing" went on between the serpent lord and Eve in the absence of the Adam.

Your long-winded wordy argument isn't worth the time it has taken you to write it.

Sure there is. See my previous statements and Scriptural passages. Not only this, but the Son becoming flesh and blood. He would know the order. There are many passages that confirm Genesis and Adam's role.

1 Timothy 2:12-14 (NASB)
12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Adam was the one held responsible for the Fall just as Jesus is the one who is responsible for our restoration and reconciliation before God. There are many comparisons and contrasts between the two representatives.

Romans 5 makes this clear.

2 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Through one man - Adam - death is attributed, even though Eve was the first to take of the fruit. That is because Adam was the head. Through the transgression of the one - Adam - many die. Again sin and guilt are attributed to Adam as the head, the one representing us before God, just as Jesus, as the last or second Adam is the one who represents us before God. ONE sin resulted in condemnation. That is the sin of Adam. Death reigned from the transgression of the one man - Adam.

1 Corinthians 11:3

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@Envisage

Now, logic is not dependent upon you but it is dependent upon thinking being. Without God (i.e., materialism or empiricism) how does something that is non-living, non-conscious, develop into something that is and is this more reasonable to believe than logic comes from an eternal necessary Being?
You do realise that logic systems with completely different axioms to those we commonly use in math etc. can and have been developed that have zero application or relevance to reality as we experience it right? You can even have entire mathematical systems that are inconsistent. The systems and axioms are wholly dependent on thinking beings.

I am not aware of what you are speaking about. The concept of twoness is not dependent alone on your mind believing it. It is independent of your thought process or mine yet without such concepts of twoness our understanding of numbers would be meaningless. Furthermore, I would argue the concept of twoness is not a physical thing, thus it is not empirical. Would you agree or disagree?

Now, if it is not a physical thing, how does it arise from a strictly material universe? How does what is, physical matter, then turn into something intangible and abstract?

5) truth
The sentence of "The origin of truth" makes no sense. either something is true or it is not.
Okay. Is truth mind-dependent? Does truth depend on being or is there such a thing as truth without "being" to perceive it? If truth has its origins from beings you still need to jump the hurdle and develop how conscious beings come from physical matter devoid of consciousness. If truth is not an abstract mindful process then it cannot be known or explained.

And when I speak of truth, I speak of the truth of origins. How do you know your view of origins is what corresponds to reality unless a necessary mindful Being has revealed origins?
This falls into the same category of thing as Q4. So redress these arguments to that.

Truth falls under epistemology, and a lot of that will depend on your view of logic systems, which define within themselves "true" and "false". To state there is "truth" outside of imaged systems such as logic makes zero sense to me, thus #4 should be addressed first.

So, truth is mind-dependent but it is not dependent on your mind or my mind for its existence. You might say it is another self-evident principle which again I argue is reasonable to believe a necessary mind is behind our perceptions of truth. Denying the truth does not make something less true if it is in fact true at all. The principle is that which is true cannot at the same time and manner be false. A thing is what it is. It cannot be both what it is and not what it is.

The question now is, do you discover a truth that exists outside yourself or do you just make it up and because you believe it then it is true? If you choose the former then truth seems to exist regardless of whether you do or I do but it is again a mindful thing.

Is it reasonable to believe a necessary mind is its source? Or is chance happenstance what leads to things being true? I again think the reasonable answer is the former. If we think the thoughts or read the written revelation of such a necessary mind we can discover and know the truth.

6) morality
Nihilism works fine as a meta ethical theory. Describing human behaviours and what human behaviours people would generally most prefer I don't categorise as morality. If you do though then I encourage you to read "Sapiens: A brief history or humankind" for some good speculation.
Develop that nihilistic thought. What do you mean?
There is no such thing as inherent right or wrong on any level. They are all imagined orders/realities.

So something can be right and wrong at the same time? Thus, as an example, it is not inherently wrong to kill innocent human beings for pleasure.

If you believe it is right then it is right for you? If you believe it is wrong then it is wrong for you. Again you state absolutes (no such thing) that if true is self-refuting, thus, illogical to believe.

Neither do I classify behaviour as morality for the following reasons: How does an 'ought' come from an 'is.' A behaviour is. It is a description of something taking place. A preference is a "like," a personal taste. I like ice-cream. Does that mean you SHOULD like ice-cream too?

"Ought" is defined within whatever imagined order you subscribe to. I do not subscribe to any, so asking me how "ought" comes from an "is" makes no sense, since "ought" makes no sense outside of an imagined order "such as a religious order, but certainly not exclusive to a religious order".

Imagined order subscribed to? Ought makes no sense to you - it is nonsense to you. You imagine one thing, I another, and nothing is what should or must be, just a preference? I cut in line in front of you because I believe I am privileged!!! Nothing wrong with that. You condone the taking an innocent human life (abortion) because you do not think there are self-evident principles involved like equality and justice. They are just preferences that you either like or dislike

So, in other words, you make right and wrong a preference since there is no ought. You don't think it ought to be followed. Do whatever.

What you want me to do is just recognize right and wrong as a description, a behaviour that is liked or disliked, not a must, ought, should --> a prescription. Why should I do what you describe or believe if I do not want to do it? No reason. Since you have no ultimate or fixed standard that you can point to I'll do as I please and what I want.

I believe we are indeed in trouble if we adopt your relativism. It begs the question of why I must like what you like for that is all you offer. Or you congregate with other like-minded people and force your likes on others since there is no prescription of what is the case. It is just the imagined order of subscription, to your mind. IOW's, your relative subjective tastes or preferences are not what I ought to do because you believe them. There is nothing compelling me to accept your likes. IOW's, you have no absolute or fixed standard of what right means. IOW's, you have no best that you compare right and wrong against. You just make it up. You have no expectation of me following what you believe until it gets personal and I do something you do not like. Then is when it appears that there is an ought. I ought not to hurt your family members for no reason. I ought not to make fun of you because of your skin colour or height or because you do not live as well off as I do financially. The problem with your relativism is that you can think it but it is not practically lived. Some things are definitely wrong. If you don't think so, step this way. You are the next in line for someone's evil purposes. How do you recognize right and wrong from the standpoint of moral relativism?

You do not "subscribe to an imagined order. Anything goes.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

https://www.britannica.com/science/anthropic-principle

-->

@Envisage

Lemme try.

Origins of:

1) existence
The sentence of "origin of existence" makes no sense. Something either exists or it doesn't.
How things come to be then.
Again I have problems with the term "come to be".

I imagine this question makes perfect sense in your head, either that or you are not articulating your thoughts very accurately.

If your question is "How have all things that exist have come to exist as they are today?", that question makes sense, and I can try and answer it.

if your question is "How/why does anything exists at all?" that that question also makes sense, and again I can try and answer it.

But if your question "what is the origin of existence?" then that is incoherent to me, I do not understand what you are trying to ask, since it seems to me you ae treating "existence" as a type of "thing" that can be talked about in the same way as a statue, or a tree.

If you want me to talk past you than I can try in futility to answer the question in its original form and fail as anyone else here has tried to.

I think semantically you are playing word games. You know very well this is centred on accounting for the how/why anything exists at all. Start with the universe, then consciousness/life, then morals.

How/why does the universe exist? Did it begin or is it eternal? If it began, does it have a cause? If it began, what is that cause? Do you have a reasonable explanation for how and why?

How/why does life exist? Does consciousness come from something devoid of it? Is that reasonable and a more plausible explanation?

How/why do morals exist? What are they? Is there such a thing as right or wrong, a fixed measure to compare good and bad against, or are such things just changing preferences?

The aim: I am asking you to assess whether it is more reasonable to believe we and everything exist because of a necessary mindful being or because of chance happenstance.

2) The universe
Don't know. Can freely speculate, but don't know.
If you don't know then what is more reasonable to believe? What view is able to make sense of existence. What view is more reasonable in making sense of the universe?
Define "view".

I assume you mean "the view with a god, or the view without a god" and I am happy to answer that if that if what you are asking.

Yes.

3) life
Don't know. Can freely speculate, but don't know.
The what is more reasonable to believe. Explain what you believe and let's take a look at the reasonableness.

I already stated I believe I don't know. Do you want to rephrase your question more explicitly (I assume it requires similar phrasing to=== Q2) so I can answer it more to your satisfaction?

Note that I would normally be more charitable in discussions and not request rephrasing, but I assume we have very different terminology, culture and viewpoints, and it would all too easy for me to say something that doesn't answer the question as you envisioned it in your head.

That is fine. I hope we can work towards an understanding by asking the right questions. It may take some time to iron out our terminology.

So you stated you don't know. Fine. I was asking you for an explanation. Which do you think is a more reasonable explanation for life, 1) it always existing (our transitory, temporary life and being coming from necessary eternal life and Being) or 2) somehow life came from something non-living.

4) logic
Humans developed it.
So, without human beings, there would be no such thing?
Note that when I speak of logic, I think of formal axiomatic logical systems, such as those used in mathematics, or rules of inference etc.

I see no reason why other species or aliens couldn't develop logic themselves.

I assume your question is better rephrased as:
"So without beings to reason, there would be no such thing as logic?"

To which I answer "Yes". Since logic doesn't exist as a thing outside of the mind.

Great! So you believe logic is a mindful process. Do you think a necessary eternal being is its origin or chance happenstance somehow caused us to think logically? Which is more reasonable to believe of those two options or do you have a third?

I contend that we seem to "discover" laws and principles for the way things work (the operation of the universe and what is necessary for our logical thought processes). These "natural laws" we express in mathematical formulas or principles. We did not put those principles into operation, we discover them. The operated before we human beings existed, or would you say otherwise and based on what? I think it reasonable to believe these principles were still true, still operating before human beings or life forms existed in this universe. We call these principles anthropic cosmological principles.

We rely on rules of inference that even if we deny are self-evidentiary necessary in making sense of things. These self-evident inferences we call the laws of logic. Thus, they too are outside our individual mindful processes. They do not require that we believe in them but exist independently of us and are necessary for us to make sense of things.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@Envisage

Lemme try.

Origins of:

1) existence
The sentence of "origin of existence" makes no sense. Something either exists or it doesn't.

How things come to be then.

2) The universe
Don't know. Can freely speculate, but don't know.

If you don't know then what is more reasonable to believe? What view is able to make sense of existence. What view is more reasonable in making sense of the universe?

3) life
Don't know. Can freely speculate, but don't know.

The what is more reasonable to believe. Explain what you believe and let's take a look at the reasonableness.

4) logic
Humans developed it.

So, without human beings, there would be no such thing? Now, logic is not dependent upon you but it is dependent upon thinking being. Without God (i.e., materialism or empiricism) how does something that is non-living, non-conscious, develop into something that is and is this more reasonable to believe than logic comes from an eternal necessary Being?

5) truth
The sentence of "The origin of truth" makes no sense. either something is true or it is not.

Okay. Is truth mind-dependent? Does truth depend on being or is there such a thing as truth without "being" to perceive it? If truth has its origins from beings you still need to jump the hurdle and develop how conscious beings come from physical matter devoid of consciousness. If truth is not an abstract mindful process then it cannot be known or explained.

And when I speak of truth, I speak of the truth of origins. How do you know your view of origins is what corresponds to reality unless a necessary mindful Being has revealed origins?

6) morality
Nihilism works fine as a meta ethical theory. Describing human behaviours and what human behaviours people would generally most prefer I don't categorise as morality. If you do though then I encourage you to read "Sapiens: A brief history or humankind" for some good speculation.

Develop that nihilistic thought. What do you mean?

Neither do I classify behaviour as morality for the following reasons: How does an 'ought' come from an 'is.' A behaviour is. It is a description of something taking place. A preference is a "like," a personal taste. I like ice-cream. Does that mean you SHOULD like ice-cream too?

7) other things
Can't be assed.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@ethang5

It will be interesting to see how empiricism, devoid of being, is more reasonable than a Creator.
It isn't more reasonable. It cannot be, but as the bible says...

Rom 1:20 - For since the creation of the world [God's] invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Rom 1:21 - because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Rom 1:22 - Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:24 - Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,

Rom 1:26 - For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.

Rom 1:28 - And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

This is why they argue, because they do not like to retain God in their knowledge. But we will proclaim Him. We will keep Him front and center. It will annoy and incite them, but we will forever honor and glorify the great King who gave Himself for us, and saved us when we were just sinners.

I agree.

We love Him, because He first loved us.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (1 Timothy 2:14)”. Get it? Huh?

Besides, how could Adam be held culpable to sinning first since he had not received the knowledge of right and wrong that the Tree would give him in knowing the sin scenario?!

The times I have posed this very question to the devout Christian and have been met with silence is innumerable, Brother.

And my follow up question is why was only the man expelled and not the woman? Genesis 3:23

God created Adam first. He was the federal head. Thus, he represented Eve and us in his decision. As in Adam, all have sinned, so in Christ, all who submit to His headship shall be saved since He was without sin. What we witness are two covenant comparisons, the Old and the New.

This is not to mention that Eve wasn't given the instruction by god NOT to eat of the tree of "knowing". And do you notice, that all of this "knowing" happened in the absence of the Adam, while the Adam wasn't even present and the Eve was alone with the serpent lord that this "knowing "went on.

This is a ridiculous argument. You equate because Eve was not mentioned she was not included. God created Adam first. God told Adam that when HE ate he would surely die, and he did that day. Eve was created from Adam. The two were to be a unified one, to complement each other, but Adam was created to be the head. Thus, his decision affected Eve, and her own decision was not without consequences.

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

The warning was given before Eve was formed. Thus, it concerned Adam but also affected Eve. Since the woman was made last God placed the woman under the headship of the man.

Not only this, but the serpent also singled out the woman, not the man and deceived her.

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”

She disobeyed God also. She chose to eat of what God had said not to eat from. It is reasonable to believe Adam would have relayed that message to Eve since Eve said as much to the serpent.

And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from [a]any tree of the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”

She knew God had said not to eat of it. Thus, Adam would have likely explained it to her and he thus knew better. He knew what God had said, yet he chose to eat anyway. Since he was the one originally held accountable being made first and addressed first the judgment was placed on him for the separation from God because he was the federal head. God addressed him as such.

Each - the serpent, the woman and the man were given penalties.

17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;

Cursed is the ground because of you;

In toil you will eat of it

All the days of your life.

18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;

And you will eat the plants of the field;

19 By the sweat of your face

You will eat bread,

Till you return to the ground,

Because from it you were taken;

For you are dust,

And to dust you shall return.”

The penalty of physical death could be argued was also added to the list that day as underlined, as well as spiritual death promised by God upon eating of the fruit.

Strange too that pregnancy and child baring was mentioned almost immediately after the "knowing" went on.

16 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

But this was all free will, according to most Christians. It doesn't sound like "free will" if it comes with a punishment of death , now does it , Brother.

The penalty or warning was announced by God. They both had the volition to choose which course of action they would bring upon themselves. They chose to know evil, not just the good they had experienced with God until this point in time. Evil is doing contrary to the good - doing contrary to what God has said. We find this out and witness it every day. We see the consequences of our actions and poor choices.

And notice, that the - " and he will rule over you" - comes AFTER the "knowing" and not before.

Someone had to take the lead and the man was created first and the stronger physically of the two. The firstborn (in the biblical account) had significance for he/she was the first blessing. Responsibility was usually placed on the firstborn to look after and protect the second born. One reason could be that the firstborn has more experience of life, was physically stronger and more worldly-wise than the second born, being older.

There are some things the man is suited to and others the woman is, some things the man was/is designed for and others the woman was/is - childbearing being one the woman was/is designed for.

So, like it or not, there are logical and reasonable answers to your charges.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@PressF4Respect

According to the bible, God is omniscient:
Great is our Lord and abundant in strength;
His understanding is infinite. (Psalm 147:5)
This is a core tenet of the Judeo-Christian faith.

Also according to the bible, you can repent and be forgiven:
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)
This means that you can choose to repent and be baptized. This means that you are ultimately a free being, and have the autonomy to choose your path (in this case, to repent and go to heaven, or to not repent and go to hell). This is also a core tenet of the Judeo-Christian faith. If this wasn't the case, then your entire future (including whether you go to heaven or hell) would already be determined for you, and there would be no choice whatsoever in that regard, as it would have already been made for you.

The final piece of this dilemma is the law of identity, the basic law of logic that states that A=A. That is, that A cannot be something that is not A.

With these three pieces, we can now formulate the dilemma.

P1: A=A. A =/= not A.
P2: Free will stipulates that if there are two or more outcomes for a being to choose, then each outcome has a non-zero probability of happening.
P3: God is never wrong.
P4: God's omniscience means that He knows everything, including all future events. If He already knows the outcome, and He is never wrong, then the probability for that outcome is 1, and the probability for every other outcome is zero.
P5: It can't be the case that an outcome has both a zero and a non-zero chance of happening. (from P1)
C1: Therefore, free will and God's omniscience are incompatible.

We have a will and we choose, but who said our wills are free? They are governed or influenced by the baggage we collect along life's way and by that choice Adam made. Adam had a will uninfluenced or unaffected by sin so his will was free to choose either, believe God or believe Satan until he committed to the lies of Satan. He heard from God and he heard from the serpent. He chose to know both good and evil by eating the fruit. God knew he would make the choice yet Adam chose it. God did not force Adam, God just warned Adam of the consequences.

God lives outside of time. He sees before Him the end from the beginning. The time continuum was created by Him especially for humanity. We see God creating humanity different from the animals, in the likeness and image of God, with attributes that are like God's although limited, being able to reason, within limits, having dominion over things, although limited. God made humanity both physical beings and spiritual beings. There was a beginning. We have a beginning. We live. We die. God is eternally present. All events are before God. Every thought you make God is aware of yet He allows you to make them. He does not make them for you. You make them.

So, it is not God who made the decision to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was Adam who chose. God provided Adam with the warning of what would happen - spiritual death or separation from a close relationship with God, no longer forever in His presence, by barring humanity from Eden. Satan said to Eve, did God really say and told her the lie. Adam chose to know both good and evil. Before he only knew the good. Evil is going against God's goodness. It is the path of relativism, seeing and experiencing everything through our own subjective thinking instead of God's objective council.

Yes, Adam's choice was predetermined. God knew Adam would eat. God had a plan for Adam eating the fruit. God allowed Adam the choice of eating or not eating. It was Adam's choice. Adam chose. We are influenced by Adam's choice. Now we too understand good and evil. We understand what it is like to do evil. Adam did not understand this until he ate.

Unless you can find a logical error in this syllogism, you must make the choice between free will and God's omniscience. Neither choice bodes well for Christianity or Judaism (or any other religion that holds both of these to be true).

If free will is the case, then God is not omniscient, which goes against the core tenet of God's omniscience, as described in Psalm 147:5 (and verses like it).

If God's omniscience is the case, then there is no free will, which goes against the core tenet of repentance and man's free choice to repent, as described in Acts 2:38 (and verses like it).

I invite anyone to take a shot at this.

We are free to make choices. Nobody else makes those choices but us. Those choices are influenced by our sinful nature. Because of the Fall, our nature is hostile to God. It is in open rebellion to God. It chooses to reject Him. It requires an act from God of divine grace. That grace comes from His word, His Spirit, His Son. We see the problem of our sin. We witness it around us and done by us every day. God, through His word, offers a solution. Believe Him. Believe in what He has done. Why do you choose not to do this? Because your mind is set on earthly things. It wants what it wants. Thus, it requires an act of divine grace. Faith comes through hearing the message and the message is heard through the word of Christ, God's anointed One, the Messiah. Believe God or go your own way. Believe or deny. You see what living apart from God's grace does; you witness it every day in humanity's inhumanity. You witness the inconsistency of your thinking apart from God, your inability to explain existence. But being created in His image and likeness you also see goodness. You act accordingly, in part, when you sometimes live as His decrees say to live - loving your neighbour. So, there is this witness of conscience. You know there are some things that are right and others that are wrong. There is also this witness of the universe and its grandeur that speaks of a greater grandeur and glory - God. Then there is the witness of the Word, the Bible, in its internal consistency of themes and truths that speak to your conscious. God has given us a written revelation that we may know Him. So, you are without excuse before God for your sins. He has provided sufficient witness of Himself and a way of salvation.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@ethang5

I'm enjoying the interview concept. It is too bad Jeff never followed through on the challenge I issued. He does not see what he did in issuing an invitation to religious believers as the same thing I am doing in challenging his worldview. So the debate is the next stage. It will be interesting to see how empiricism, devoid of being, is more reasonable than a Creator.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

Apply to be interviewed on your philosophical and/or religious outlook.

-->

@RationalMadman

Name you want to be addressed with (including Mr/Mrs/Ms etc):

Peter or PGA 2.0

Religious label I affiliate with:

Christian, Preterist leanings.

Motive to engage in the interview:

Show the reasonableness of the Preterist view of Scripture and belief in the biblical God.

In your opinion, if God/s is/are real, is/are he/she/it/they good, evil, neutral or a complex combination?

I believe in one true and living God, the God revealed in the writings of the Bible, the sixty-six canonized "books."

I believe God is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal, true being.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@Jeff_Goldblum

-->@PGA2.0
Realities origin or just origins?
Whichever you prefer.
Or: Christianity is more reasonable in making sense of origins.
Sure.

Is empiricism the worldview you choose to defend?
Yep.

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. I would be willing to start the debate shortly once I complete an outside job for a customer and even before this current debate I'm engaged in is finished if you agree to a two-week time frame for each round. I expect to get the green light to do the job within a week.

I also want between 12,000 to 15,000 characters. Are you okay with those two requests?

PS. I would be aware and wary of the post above this one in which there is nothing constructive or of substance offered, only smearing and an ad-hominem attack of my character.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Well.

An idol is a representation of something unknown....So as an assumed god is something unknown.... Ergo the worship of an assumed god is idol worship.

Then how can you call something "God" if you don't know that it is representative of God?

The biblical belief is based on a revelation. Its writings claim to be the word of God. If true, and the internal nature of the books that make up the Bible would have correspondence to external pieces of evidence and proof since God as the Creature of all things would truly reveal the true nature of history and events from the beginning.

Thus, the Bible reveals the nature of the said God and it is logically and internally and externally consistent with what we witness and how we understand in making sense of things.

You have to start someone but if you start with a false core belief it leads you into a system of untrue beliefs. Even though you can borrow from a true belief system the overall content and context of your belief system is foul and corrupt in such cases. Thus, Jesus said that we MUST worship God in spirit and in TRUTH. If you do not worship what is true you have built for yourself an idol, a false foundation. a house of cards that when the wind and waves of opposition blow against such beliefs they crumble and collapse in their foolishness.

In the context of universal meaning, purpose is merely the alternative to chance and as such has no prerequisite requirements, you make up prerequisite requirements to suit the purposes of your hypothesis....Which in fairness is the nature of hypothesising.

Your thoughts point to relative and are self-defeating. It makes anyone wonder and question why you, a relative, subjective being, holds the answers to anything. You do not have what is necessary to make sense of morality. Something evil can be called good with your system of thought. Such thinking makes a farce of logic, turning it on its head and banging it against the pavement.

Acceptance, especially without proof is certainly a bias, whereas open mindedness definitely isn't.... Because I am sceptical of the Christian hypothesis and all it's ritualistic machinations doesn't make me biased....Just sceptical.

Open-mindedness is usually another word for a particular kind of bias, a mascarade, a way to manipulate others, a concept that never materializes when it gets pushed into a corner. Then the true bias shines forth. A bias that is based on truth is desired.

So, atheist nor agnostic nor theist can make sense of the origins of things sufficiently, hence the ongoing discussion and unresolved issue.

Atheists and agnostics do not have what is required to do so, thus they do not have the necessary means of doing so unless they steal from a particular theistic belief system.

Finally, how about addressing the subject of technological evolution/development, and how the possibilities that lie therein, fit with the Christian god theory.....For me, material development fits well with a purpose and a god principle, but less so with the importance of humankind....So what do you think?

As conscious beings created in the image and likeness of God, we are capable of using our reasoning to understand His creation and what He expects of us. The universe declares His glory, majesty, ability, and power. We use our God-given minds to improve and enhance our existence and at the same time when we ignore God, we use relativism to deconstruct what He has made self-evident to us in our rebellion.

His written word has given us principles of morality to live by that are good and pleasing to Him. One of those principles is equality, as noted by your founding fathers. They did not say, "All men are evolved equally," or "all men are evolving to be equal." That is not the case. We witness around us every day what happens when humans live a life outside of the principles God has given for us to live WISELY. We see our inhumanity and devaluing, discriminating, and dehumanizing our fellow humans because we are in rebellion to God's ways. We prefer to live with our own revolving and evolving, shifting principles that are not self-evident but selfish and destructive.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@PressF4Respect

For something to be wrong it must conform to an objective measure. If I measure a piece of wood with my tape-measure to be 11 inches when the true measurement is 12 inches I have not obtained a true reading. I am WRONG in my understanding of the true measurement. When I go to apply the cut piece to the desired length it is not going to fit properly. The same is true for morals. They need an exact measurement for them to be "right."
False analogy. You cannot "measure" morals (saying which ones are better, and which ones are worse), as I have already explained. There is no "morality tape-measure", so to speak.

Sure you can measure them if you have the proper standard to compare something with. If you have no fixed standard for good (everything is relative) how can you say something is good? It is relative and shifting, ultimately meaningless. It goes against the standards of logic.

A basic human right is a right to life. Deny it and anarchy is present and unlivable. Anything goes.

A basic principle is that of equality for all human beings, as stated in your Declaration of Independence. If some are treated with favour or partiality there is no justice because justice requires equal fairness for all people. Once this basic tenant is denied, individuals and groups can be marginalized and dehumanized. They can then be treated with unimaginable cruelty and inhumanity that is unlivable for those who are outside the scope of this elitism and injustice.

Basic principles of justice are contained in the Ten Commandments. It is wrong to murder, steal, lie, covet, commit adultery, dishonour and disrespect your parents, etc. These are the basics that many laws are based on.

Are you denying the law of identity, that a thing it what it is? Is a dog (A) a fish (B)? A=B? Does a dog have a true identity? Or can what I call a dog mean anything?
If you do not recognize something that is a self-evident principle you need to think about it further. The laws of logic are universal principles that are REQUIRED to make sense of things.
Morals aren't anywhere near as clear-cut and distinct as the difference between a dog and a fish. As I have stated, most moral issues are quite grey.

You are right in some cases, but especially so if you neglect these basic principles spoken of in my last two paragraphs. Things definitely do become gray when people are incapable of identifying what is necessary for justice, equality and laws.

If there is not a true measure then anything can be passed off as right or good. Can you live with that? "Step this way! You are the next in line for the gas chambers!" The problem is you can say something is "right" like gassing people to death until something wrong like this is done to you, then you understand and know the difference between the two. Some things are just plain wrong, like killing innocent people. If you deny that first principle or self-evident truth the killing of an innocent person could be you. Should you live with that?
Evolution explains why it is near-universally held that killing innocent people is wrong (as I have already shown).

Evolution is not a conscious thinking person. It explains nothing, people use it as a tool of expression signifying or used to explain why things happen. You keep personifying it. It is incapable of doing anything. What you are speaking of is the chance happenstance where the "strong" or "fit" survive, thus because they survive you identify that as a moral right or example of morality working - behaviourism. There is no rhyme or reason for evolution. Things happen. Again, you obtain an ought from an is, a prescription from a description.

You believe there is or else you would not obey laws and rules or would not select one thing over another. It is self-evident when applied to physical things, but how do you apply it to intangible or abstract things? You believe it is good to obey particular rules for your well-being, like don't eat rotten food because it will make you sick. You would not be able to select a piece of rotten food as worse than a piece of fresh food without evaluating it as better or worse. With quantitative values, there is physical measurements and standards. Qualitative values require a different measuring standard. The problem is that without a moral objective standard it becomes futile in determining the best or better because people tend very often to do what they like or desire and can get away with doing rather than what is good or right.
Just like with individuals (not eating rotten food), evolution can determine some of the morals of societies as well (not killing each other).

People determine using principles they ascribe to evolution. How is that good? Without a God behind the universe, there is no ultimate morality. Morality is just something made up by subjective relative thinking people to cope with living. They create systems of belief that ultimately mean nothing. But more importantly, the question is how they came to be able to do this? How does chance happenstance govern anything? It is pure chance. How does consciousness arise from the physical universe? How does life arise? How does reason come from the unreasoning? How do morals come from something devoid of life? Fill in the gaps to make sense of thins for me.

Do you just assume it is wrong to kill innocent human beings for pleasure or do you know this is wrong to do? If you don't know that I think others would soon label you as psychopathic and want to lock you up or avoid you at all costs.
Yes, society will label me as psychopathic and lock me up or avoid me at all costs.

A psychopath has lost touch with right and wrong. He/she cannot properly identify what is just and good.

I ask you, should all human beings be treated equally under the law?

I ask you, is not life the most basic natural right a human being has? Is that not self-evident to you?

I ask you, is something just if it is not applied equally to all?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@PressF4Respect

So which is the actual wrong, that which was believed 300 years ago or that which is believed today? If morals are not based on the best or ultimate measure how do you ever get to something being "better?" Better in relation to what? In relation to something that is fleeting and shifting and that can turn into the opposite of what was once legislated and believed.
To us today, what they believed 300 years ago was wrong. Our stance is "better" than theirs in our eyes. Perhaps something we do today (for example, consuming meat) will be looked upon as "morally inferior" by those living in the future. Saying that our morals are "better" than theirs is framed in the context of our worldview. For example, people who practice Hinduism see beef consumption as a grave sin. We don't. Who's "right"? Who's "wrong"? Whose moral stance is "better", and whose is "worse"? Once again, in order to have objective morality, you need to be able to objectively answer such questions.

So you are saying that neither is wrong as long as the society believes it to be right. Although their view is the diametric opposites - i.e., murdering innocent human beings for pleasure is wrong/murdering innocent human beings for pleasure is right - you say that both are equally justifiable. This is a strange kind of thinking (moral relativism) that can call evil good and good evil. The point is how do you determine a wrong with such thinking where there is no true identity for wrong? Anything can be made up and "called" right or wrong and the problem, as I pointed out before, is that you can't live practically with this kind of thinking. As soon as someone does an injustice to you or your family then you know that some things are just plain evil. Yet so often these moral relativists are elected to public office.

So let me rant (and be charged with the fallacy of emotional appeal) and express my opinion.

It is sad when relativists control the justice system; when they let criminals free without paying sufficient penalty for their crimes and when these criminals reenter society and commit the same crimes over again, as witnessed recently. It's sad where looting and thieving replace peaceful protest and no one is held accountable. It is a weird time in which we live where the innocent are treated like criminals and perps, and where the guilty are identified as the victims and suffer no consequences for such acts. It is a shame where a wrong act by a policeman leads to shooting of and beating up of other police offerers who are trying to protect the public, where innocent companies are robbed and vandalized and the police are ordered to stand down, where half of society can no longer recognize what is actually right and wrong and where their elected officials are the ones who control what laws get passed because they use propaganda techniques in which the media becomes one of their puppetmasters of change. It is a sham where hate of a president leads to angry vigilante mobs, funded by billionaires, sent into cities to rile up crowds, create riots, burn, destroy, steal, instead of letting justice take its course, not even giving it time to do so, and the overall media keeps fueling and promoting this nonsense anarchy and lawlessness. Crazy times created by relativistic thinking and political correctness because of the gatekeepers of your society being largely liberal leftists. Socialism never works yet a majority in some states keep electing these radical thinkers into seats of power. It is crazy where a presidential candidate doesn't have what it takes to run a country but perhaps the majority will likely vote for him because they don't value their country and freedoms enough but are fueled by hatred. They don't recognize the consequences of their actions until after the fact and it is too late. Sometimes they never learn what is better. They keep electing people to office who harm their communities with ridiculous policies. Democrat politicians, generally speaking, bent on having and keeping power in the USA have become the party of oppression, big government, socialism, taking away of freedoms, imposing unjust laws, illegal and unjust plots and schemes to remove a president. They infiltrate every avenue of society to control it and use it to influence, create group-think, and sway the vote. Disgusting, from my point of view.

That brings into question which standard is the correct one, and how do you, or can you, ever determine it? Why is your view any "better" than mine in such a situation of moral relativism. Why "should" your preference override mine? How does your preference or personal taste make something that I should do? I like ice-cream. You should/must too. Preferences are what wars are fought over.
I don't know, you tell me. For instance, is the death penalty moral or immoral? There are many compelling arguments for both sides. If I believe that the death penalty is immoral, then you need to tell me, according to objective morals, why I'm objectively right or wrong.

If you don't know it is wrong to kill an innocent unborn human being because the mother no longer wants it or support gang members illegally crossing your border who have been convicted of crimes in their countries and wreak havoc in your country and yet are welcomed by illogical policies, something is dreadfully wrong, where the citizens are made to pay for medical care and schooling for illegals and yet do not look after their own citizens but instead place the burden of looking after these illegals in the millions, something is wrong.

So the teaching of society makes things right for you (once it was thought you had the right to kill a slave since you owned him/her, or the "moral climate" taught that Jews were subhuman and they could be put to death) even though that same society once taught the polar opposite. Again, I believe you confuse what "is" with what "should be" and with a worldview structure that is not true to what is the case, the actual right, I do not believe it can get to what should be. The problem is that your views are relative and shifting. You do not have what is necessary for morality, just preference.
If you were born in Tenochtitlan in the pre-Columbian era, then you would believe that human sacrifice was necessary in order to stave off the wrath of the gods and to keep the sun rising every day. You may not think you would believe that, but in that circumstance, having a belief in those gods, you would.

Necessary??? Whether you believe it or not it does not make human sacrifice right or good. Turn the tables and imagine you are about to be sacrificed unwillingly. Do you still think it just or is it the kind of rule of the gods that is practically lived?

As I have pointed out, if morality is not a "standardized test," or is relative then anything can be made possible and passed off as "right." You make sense of morals as that which the majority of society passes as "right." It has no objective reference point, just whims and preferences of those who have the might to make the rules. How does might make right? It does not, it just makes it what is forced on others.
If morality is a standardized test, then what does the answer key look like?

You don't like the answer. The biblical God as the source. The biblical God is omniscient, thus objective, omnipotent, benevolent, immutable and eternal. Those are the kind of standards or measures you need in determining and measuring goodness. If you have no ideal or best then your measuring system is shifting, constantly being reviewed and reinvented. You can never get to the good if no one knows what the good is. But we, as humans, have it subconsciously present in our minds - that is, God is the key. We deny and subvert God as the standard and measure, the final reference point in comparing to because we want to be in charge.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@PressF4Respect

How do two preferences, "I like to kill," and "I don't like to kill," make something right? Only if there is a universal or objective first principle that makes something right or wrong.

A description, what is described, is different from a prescription, what should be the case.
[1] The reason why almost everyone finds things like killing wrong is that this mindset was evolutionarily beneficial to our ancestors. When we first formed social groups, we did so to raise our collective odds of survival and procreation. A social group where killing each other is seen as morally acceptable will lessen its members' chance of survival (as killing people reduces the total numbers of your group, thus weakening it and making it more vulnerable to outside threats). [2] With time, such groups would be eliminated, leaving groups with an aversion to killing each other as the ones to populate the Earth.

[1] Or people understand that it is wrong to kill because they are created in the image and likeness of God, a necessary being from which other beings derive their existence.

[2] Unless they have superior weaponry and tactics, then they eliminate those competing for the same food source. In times of famine or pestilence, the chance of finding food could be

greater for a smaller number.

Again, you are jumping the gun, avoid the huddles. Morality is a conscious thinking attribute. First, you have to explain how consciousness and life come from things devoid of both. it is The problem of explaining morality without a necessary moral being is first how something intangible and abstract arises from the physical, material universe.

A set of rules that often contradict and conflicts that of other individuals, sub-cultures, cultures, and societies. I could bring up many examples but you highlighted abortion. Some countries and even some states have different rules regarding abortion. Which is right? Can two opposing beliefs about the same thing both be right? Can two contradictory preferences or moral views/rules be "right" at the same time regarding the same thing? If you believe so I suggest you have a logical conflict.
Again, if one is right and one is wrong, then which one is right, and why? For many moral issues, there isn't a clear-cut "right" and "wrong", as both sides have legitimate moral arguments.

No, one is wrong if the two are opposites.

Second, if there is no objective value and reference point that applies to all humanity then what you call morals are nothing more than preferences. How do preferences make anything morally right? A preference is a subjective or personal taste such as I like ice-cream or I don't like ice-cream. How does a description turn into a moral prescription or an ought? "Might makes right" is a subjective preference used in the hands of a dictator, an oligarchy, or a select few to a majority to influence a preference. Hitler liked to kill Jews. The allied nation liked to protect them. The question is what makes either of those two things morally wrong rather than just preferences?
The key here is that reference points are set by each society, not by each individual.

Even if that is the case, the law of identity would mean one society is wrong if both state opposites, such as abortion is morally right or abortion is morally wrong. It can't be both right and wrong at the same time and still make sense. If an individual lives on the border of two societies with opposing moral laws, how does he determine which is the true value? He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@Jeff_Goldblum

Proposed Title: Christianity vs. Empiricism: Making Sense of Reality's Origin

Realities origin or just origins? We are speaking of a number of firsts along the way if you believe the universe had a beginning. Otherwise, the origin of the universe does not apply.

Proposed Resolution: Christianity is a superior worldview for making sense of the origin of reality.

Or: Christianity is more reasonable in making sense of origins.

BoP: Shared. Pro defends Christianity while Con proposes an alternative worldview (empiricism).

Agreed. Is empiricism the worldview you choose to defend?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

https://simplicable.com/new/law-of-excluded-middle

-->

@PressF4Respect

Yes, I agree it is wrong to own slaves and I do not believe that is the biblical intent or God's best for humanity. I believe chattel slavery was common in the ANE (Ancient Near East), practiced by surrounding nations, but God told Israel not to adopt the practices of slavery witnessed (and they experienced) in ancient Egypt, and I can pull up Scripture that teaches against that kind of slavery. I believe the type read of in the Mosaic Laws in the OT and God's desired intent was indentured service, the same kind of principle relationship we understand in an employer/employee relationship. The NT teaches that all humans are free in Christ. That is God's ideal - our freedom in Christ.
What I meant by that was that the idea that humans beings shouldn't become others' property was only widely accepted relatively recently. I wasn't talking about the bible's stance on slavery, but if you insist, I can talk about that too.

I think there is enough to digest without getting into biblical proofs for now.

How can you have morality unless it is an objective measure? Why is your subjective preference any "better" than an opposing subjective preference?
Once again, what you think of as "moral" is what you perceive others thinking of as "moral". Your subjective preference is only "better" than an opposing one in you your eyes. As I have demonstrated already, there are many moral issues where both sides have equally valid arguments. If you are to claim an objective morality, then you need to prove why one moral stance is irrefutably right, and the other undeniably wrong.

Let me get this straight - something is only better if you think it is better?

Two opposite arguments regarding the same thing logically cannot both be valid. You can't say killing innocent children is morally valid and then say killing innocent children is not valid. The law of excluded middles comes into play. It has to be one or the other.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/compromise_and_the_law_of_the_excluded_middle_.html

How do two preferences, "I like to kill," and "I don't like to kill," make something right? Only if there is a universal or objective first principle that makes something right or wrong.

A description, what is described, is different from a prescription, what should be the case.
The reason why almost everyone finds things like killing wrong is that this mindset was evolutionarily beneficial to our ancestors.

The reason derived from your worldview bias. From mine the reason is that humanity is created in the image and likeness of God, thus our consciences, although marred by the Fall, speak to us about what is right. The further we remove ourselves from God the more relative we become in our thinking until nothing makes sense.

The "evolutionary mindset" in the fight for survival could just as easily be that it is beneficial to eliminate those who don't think as you do.

When we first formed social groups, we did so to raise our collective odds of survival and procreation. A social group where killing each other is seen as morally acceptable will lessen its members' chance of survival (as killing people reduces the total numbers of your group, thus weakening it and making it more vulnerable to outside threats). With time, such groups would be eliminated, leaving groups with an aversion to killing each other as the ones to populate the Earth.

It could go either way. Evolutionary speaking, when it is beneficial to kill, kill. When it is beneficial to have numbers, stick together.

But you have a further problem to tackle. How do you get an ought from an is?

"Is Ought. The is-ought fallacy occurs when the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way."

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Is-ought.html

Compounded it more, reversing in time to origins. Morality is meaningful. Without a mindful Being, morality means nothing. If you believe the universe had a beginning then how do you get something intangible and abstract from the physical? Then how do you get consciousness from something devoid of it, life from nonliving things?

Thus, the more reasonable explanation is definitely God.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@Jeff_Goldblum

If you'd like to have a debate, then send me a challenge after negotiating a resolution and pertinent definitions with me. I am not interested in this form of interrogation in a forum setting.

Your challenge:

"If you believe in God, consider this an open invitation to participate in Street Epistemology"

So the scrutiny you place upon the Christian or theist worldview in answering your questions you are not willing to reciprocate by answering questions about your worldview? IOW's, you can question us but we can't question you in holding you accountable for what you believe as reasonable. I was quite willing to discuss the two and find out how you answer these difficult questions to test your belief system as you are testing the theistic position. It appears to me to be a one-way street. You set up five threads in which you can question theists but are not willing to have the tables turned. IMO, this is a double-standard and it confirms to me to date that you have not been able to make sense of what you believe (i.e., "I don't know" to both Q 1 & 2).

I'm in a debate right now and I have another pending, then I will think about setting one up with you, or you can do the same with me. I am willing to debate you. We can discuss the wording and content of debate if you like for a starter. That is something we can do right now. For instance, what would be the challenge heading? Here is a proposal:

Does Christianity Make Better Sense of Origins/Is It More Reasonable than Other Worldviews?

BOP shared. You have to provide a system of thought you believe is more reasonable. You also need to refute Christianity as being able to make sense of origins. That means we must both provide evidence or reasonable inference and back up our claims as logically as possible.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

We created gods in our own image.
In other words this is what humanity has been doing for millennia, pre and post Christianity....Not me in particular.

True, not just you, and Christianity and Judaism point this idol worship out. People substitute their graven images and thoughts for the real God. God's written revelation cleared the misconception of gods as opposed to God for those wanting to deny God by making Him in their own image and likeness rather than the other way around.

A world view is a world view and we are not discussing a world view.... You are putting forward the idea of a supernatural being that exists in a separate time continuum, this is hardly a world view.

What does a worldview do? It is a way of looking at the world and explaining it though a system of thought, building on core principles that all else follow from.

The initial question itself, was only referring to the universe, and my thoughts and suggestions only focus on the likelihood of the known universe being purposeful....That purpose could be anything and also does not necessarily have to imply a creator....The necessity of a specific creator is a supposition that you have acquired through conditioning....I was conditioned differently and so I am questioning and sceptical, and in my opinion I therefore have a more realistic and open minded approach to the big question.

PURPOSE requires mindfulness, consciousness, thinking, reason, intention. Thus, that purpose cannot be anything. It has to be a being that is purposeful. A stone has no purpose. It just is.

How is chance happenstance more realistic? I have asked to explain this to me a number of times by various questions.

Being open minded allows me to consider the possibly lessening importance of humankind (and perhaps even similar kind) in a material universe that is now evolving technologically.....And yes, for the time being we still have a hold of the steering wheel.....but for how long?.....Hence my advice to traditional theists such as yourself, is to perhaps rethink the whole human/god/human-god hypothesis and include the strong possibility of the organic becoming a lessening part of the purpose equation, and therefore not necessarily the overriding reason for the instigation, continuation and purpose of everything.

We all have biases. I believe that where you start guides what you accept. BUT, how does where you start then make sense of origins is the golden question? Can it make sense of these things? My point of contention is that an atheist or agnostic or a worldview that discounts a personal Being cannot make sense of origins of things sufficiently.

Why anchor yourself resolutely to a 2000year old human centred hypothesis?....Especially when you have no real evidence for it's validity.

I have lots of reasonable evidence from the Bible's contents (internal) and history (external), plus I have what is necessary and sensible to make sense of origins. Not only that but the more I read and study the Bible the more its words, in conjunction with other things, confirm to me the truthfulness of its claims. Hebrews 11:6 is a must in having a relationship with God. That relationship is found through Jesus Christ and what He has done. I spend a lot of time trying to get you guys to explain and justify your belief systems. I do not believe you can because they are not true.

I anchor myself to this revelation because it does make sense and because through His word, His Spirit, His Son, I have a relationship with God. His word confirms things to my mind about meaning and purpose for and in my life.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@PressF4Respect

Then I'm not following the statement, "All of that is through your modern, Western, Judeo-Christian worldview." It seems that you joined everything together.
Allow me to clarify. They are two different aspects of your worldview. I assume that you have a modern worldview (for example, I assume you believe it is wrong to own other human beings as property) and that you have a Judeo-Christian worldview (that you hold the morals taught in the bible in high regard).

Yes, I agree it is wrong to own slaves and I do not believe that is the biblical intent or God's best for humanity. I believe chattel slavery was common in the ANE (Ancient Near East), practiced by surrounding nations, but God told Israel not to adopt the practices of slavery witnessed (and they experienced) in ancient Egypt, and I can pull up Scripture that teaches against that kind of slavery. I believe the type read of in the Mosaic Laws in the OT and God's desired intent was indentured service, the same kind of principle relationship we understand in an employer/employee relationship. The NT teaches that all humans are free in Christ. That is God's ideal - our freedom in Christ.

When a person reads the two testaments or covenants they should understand that the Old Covenant was directed at a relationship with OT Israel. That covenant was abolished in AD 70 when its fulfillment was completed.

There are somethings that cannot be subjective to have moral values rather than preferences. I question why something is moral if you can't establish something as right or wrong.
Stating that there are "right" and "wrong" morals assumes that morality is objective in the first place.

How can you have morality unless it is an objective measure? Why is your subjective preference any "better" than an opposing subjective preference? How do two preferences, "I like to kill," and "I don't like to kill," make something right? Only if there is a universal or objective first principle that makes something right or wrong.

A description, what is described, is different from a prescription, what should be the case.

In such cases how do you have morals?
You have morals because the society to which you are born has a set of moral rules (either written down specifically in rules or unwritten) that you adopt from the people close to you (parents, teachers, friends, etc.).

A set of rules that often contradict and conflicts that of other individuals, sub-cultures, cultures, and societies. I could bring up many examples but you highlighted abortion. Some countries and even some states have different rules regarding abortion. Which is right? Can two opposing beliefs about the same thing both be right? Can two contradictory preferences or moral views/rules be "right" at the same time regarding the same thing? If you believe so I suggest you have a logical conflict.

Second, if there is no objective value and reference point that applies to all humanity then what you call morals are nothing more than preferences. How do preferences make anything morally right? A preference is a subjective or personal taste such as I like ice-cream or I don't like ice-cream. How does a description turn into a moral prescription or an ought? "Might makes right" is a subjective preference used in the hands of a dictator, an oligarchy, or a select few to a majority to influence a preference. Hitler liked to kill Jews. The allied nation liked to protect them. The question is what makes either of those two things morally wrong rather than just preferences?

If morals are subjective they are changeable.
Yes, morals are changeable. Three hundred years ago, slavery was morally acceptable to most people. Nowadays that isn't the case.

So which is the actual wrong, that which was believed 300 years ago or that which is believed today? If morals are not based on the best or ultimate measure how do you ever get to something being "better?" Better in relation to what? In relation to something that is fleeting and shifting and that can turn into the opposite of what was once legislated and believed. That brings into question which standard is the correct one, and how do you, or can you, ever determine it? Why is your view any "better" than mine in such a situation of moral relativism. Why "should" your preference override mine? How does your preference or personal taste make something that I should do? I like ice-cream. You should/must too. Preferences are what wars are fought over.

How do you establish right from a standard that is shifting and has no fixed reference point?
What you perceive as "right" is what the society you were raised in taught you is "right". More specifically, it is what the people around you say is "right". Morality isn't a standardized test. There are no "right" and "wrong" answers. There's just what you, and the people around you, think is right.

So the teaching of society makes things right for you (once it was thought you had the right to kill a slave since you owned him/her, or the "moral climate" taught that Jews were subhuman and they could be put to death) even though that same society once taught the polar opposite. Again, I believe you confuse what "is" with what "should be" and with a worldview structure that is not true to what is the case, the actual right, I do not believe it can get to what should be. The problem is that your views are relative and shifting. You do not have what is necessary for morality, just preference.

What the people around you say is right??? "You should kill innocent human beings." That is your criterion for "right?"

As I have pointed out, if morality is not a "standardized test," or is relative then anything can be made possible and passed off as "right." You make sense of morals as that which the majority of society passes as "right." It has no objective reference point, just whims and preferences of those who have the might to make the rules. How does might make right? It does not, it just makes it what is forced on others.

Whatever example you choose I could probably provide a contrary view that is believed somewhere in this world for those laws or beliefs.
Yes, that is a major problem of objective morality, especially since in almost all cases, both sides have valid arguments for their moral stances.

A major problem of moral objectivism? That is not moral objectivism but moral subjectivism, i.e., personal likes and tastes. You confuse the two. It has no fixed address for something being right. "Right" is fleeting. It depends on who rules the day as to what the preference becomes. For something to be wrong it must conform to an objective measure. If I measure a piece of wood with my tape-measure to be 11 inches when the true measurement is 12 inches I have not obtained a true reading. I am WRONG in my understanding of the true measurement. When I go to apply the cut piece to the desired length it is not going to fit properly. The same is true for morals. They need an exact measurement for them to be "right."

That brings into question a violation of a law of logic, the law of identity that states A=A. With two opposing views of the same thing, there is no fixed identity. Which one is right? Something cannot be right and wrong at the same time and in the same manner. It makes no sense to say homosexuality is right and at the same time, it is wrong. If two individuals or two societies believe the opposite which view is right?
Again, this assumes that there is a "right" and "wrong" (basically assuming objective morality).

Are you denying the law of identity, that a thing it what it is? Is a dog (A) a fish (B)? A=B? Does a dog have a true identity? Or can what I call a dog mean anything?

If you do not recognize something that is a self-evident principle you need to think about it further. The laws of logic are universal principles that are REQUIRED to make sense of things.

If morality is subjective who is to say which opposing view is the true view?
This assumes that there is a "true view". If so, then which one is it (for any moral issue)?

If there is not a true measure then anything can be passed off as right or good. Can you live with that? "Step this way! You are the next in line for the gas chambers!" The problem is you can say something is "right" like gassing people to death until something wrong like this is done to you, then you understand and know the difference between the two. Some things are just plain wrong, like killing innocent people. If you deny that first principle or self-evident truth the killing of an innocent person could be you. Should you live with that?

Again, you need a fixed, unchanging, objective standard for morality to make sense of it.
Then what is that standard?

A necessary Being who is omniscient (knows all things), benevolent, immutable, eternal, who has revealed the Golden Rule of treating others as you would want to be treated and who has identified wrongs as, "You shall not kill" (murder). You shall not steal, or lie, or covet something belonging to someone else, or want to commit adultery, or dishonour your parents and you should treat them with respect and not oppose them without just reason (i.e., they are doing something wrong).

If you can't supply one then what makes your opinion any "better" than mine?
This assumes that there is a "better" and "worse".

You believe there is or else you would not obey laws and rules or would not select one thing over another. It is self-evident when applied to physical things, but how do you apply it to intangible or abstract things? You believe it is good to obey particular rules for your well-being, like don't eat rotten food because it will make you sick. You would not be able to select a piece of rotten food as worse than a piece of fresh food without evaluating it as better or worse. With quantitative values, there is physical measurements and standards. Qualitative values require a different measuring standard. The problem is that without a moral objective standard it becomes futile in determining the best or better because people tend very often to do what they like or desire and can get away with doing rather than what is good or right.

Do you just assume it is wrong to kill innocent human beings for pleasure or do you know this is wrong to do? If you don't know that I think others would soon label you as psychopathic and want to lock you up or avoid you at all costs.

Better, just like right and wrong, implies a qualitative moral measurement, obtained from a reference that is "best" and one in which we compare good and better, right and wrong against.
Then what is that "best" reference point?

God, an ultimate, necessary, objective, absolute, good, unchanging, eternal reference and measure. Without Him, there is no ultimate accountability for a Hitler. Without Him, doing whatever you can get away with is justifiable.

What is your "Best?" Can you establish one?
I don't know. Can you?

Yes, a necessary Being that meets the criterion I described earlier. The principle of a necessary being is what I term self-evident and required to make sense of morality. It is when you deny such a Being that you cannot make sense of morality.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@PressF4Respect

I would not classify Judeo-Christianity as a modern worldview.
"Modern" and "Judeo-Christian" were referring to two different things.

Then I'm not following the statement, "All of that is through your modern, Western, Judeo-Christian worldview." It seems that you joined everything together.

Yes, we probably did discuss it before but since you applied that as your example I will once again respond.

Abortion is the taking of innocent human life. Do you find that immoral? Once you lose the concept of equal justice anything goes. Injustice is something that you would not want to be applied to you. I believe the only time it is immoral to deny a woman an abortion is when doing so will result in the loss of her life.
Abortion was just an example I used to illustrate the subjective nature of morality.

There are somethings that cannot be subjective to have moral values rather than preferences. I question why something is moral if you can't establish something as right or wrong. In such cases how do you have morals? If morals are subjective they are changeable. How do you establish right from a standard that is shifting and has no fixed reference point?

There are many other examples I could've used to show the same point: same-sex marriage, voluntary self-euthanasia (also known as Doctor-Assisted Suicide), the death penalty, medical testing on animals, etc, etc, etc.

Whatever example you choose I could probably provide a contrary view that is believed somewhere in this world for those laws or beliefs. That brings into question a violation of a law of logic, the law of identity that states A=A. With two opposing views of the same thing, there is no fixed identity. Which one is right? Something cannot be right and wrong at the same time and in the same manner. It makes no sense to say homosexuality is right and at the same time, it is wrong. If two individuals or two societies believe the opposite which view is right? If morality is subjective who is to say which opposing view is the true view? Again, you need a fixed, unchanging, objective standard for morality to make sense of it. If you can't supply one then what makes your opinion any "better" than mine? Better, just like right and wrong, implies a qualitative moral measurement, obtained from a reference that is "best" and one in which we compare good and better, right and wrong against. What is your "Best?" Can you establish one?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@Jeff_Goldblum

At the outset, I'd like to draw a distinction between what you are doing with me and what I am doing with the interviewees in the 5 SE chats. I am politely exploring the epistemological bases for people's beliefs, whereas you seem much more intent on proving me wrong (i.e. "challenging" me). Street Epistemology is not a contest or a clash of beliefs. It's a respectful Q&A between interviewer and interviewee.

Okay, with one distinction you could argue that. To a point (the challenge of making sense of a worldview is something you are also asking the theist to explain) so overall I would respectfully disagree. I am being direct and bolder in my questions. You see, I am also trying to understand how you can make sense of your worldview (I question the possibility, ultimately of you doing it) - the fundamental or core nuts and bolts (beliefs) that hold your worldview together. There is usually a clash between two parties when an opposing belief is questioned because we tend to protect our underlying or core beliefs that everything else rests upon. Once our core beliefs are found wanting the options are either cling to an illogical faith/belief, find better reasons, or find a new one. So much rides on our core suppositions. I believe the deeper I dig into atheism the more frustrating the process will become for you in justifying your belief system. There is a subtle war going on between your worldview and mine (believer and unbeliever) in making sense of existence. We oppose and undermine each other subconsciously. I understand that.

1) What is your explanation of the origins of existence? Why does anything exist?
I don't know.

Then you are ignorant (not knowing) and have not made sense of how and why we exist.

In explaining existence as a Christian I appeal to a necessary Being of which neither you or I am. A necessary Being is Someone who can give reason and certainty. Without that Being, and that Beings revelation, we can only speculate. So, based on what you have given me on this point, I argue I have a more reasonable belief.

More questions.

1) a) Is it reasonable to believe that life and our existence come from non-life which would have to be your default if you deny a personal eternally existing God. Please explain.

1) b) Is it more reasonable to believe a self-existent, thus necessary being gives existence to other beings or is there a better explanation you can offer?

2) How did the existence of this universe happen?
I don't know.

Again, ignorance - no explanation. Nothing made sense of it.

The Christian worldview explains that the universe has a beginning. That corresponds to many variables from science that back up a beginning. The cause of the universe comes from a self-existing eternal Being, Someone outside the physical realm and time who has revealed Himself to humanity. There are various checks and balances that give the Bible reasonableness.

Is your worldview capable of making sense of these first two questions?
I believe so. Because I lack the evidence to answer these questions, I simply say "I don't know." I think beliefs should be substantiated by evidence. If there is no evidence to substantiate belief, there should be no belief.

"I don't know," tells me nothing about how or why the universe exists or if there is something behind its existence. The Christian worldview can offer evidence for its truth claims, a claimed revelation that is reasonable to believe because it would come from a reasoning and omniscient being who has left us the evidence. That is not only historical evidence but philosophical and logical evidence. There is a purpose to the universe from such a being (God created it for His glory and He created a being, the human, who can also enjoy and appreciate its grandeur and awesomeness). If the revelation is true (which again is reasonable to believe) we can make sense of the universe.

More points for my Christian worldview as being more reasonable!

So, more questions.

2) a) With an atheist perspective, how do "I think beliefs" originate from the physical, non-conscious, random chance happenstance of events.

2) b) Is there an original "starting" cause that is sufficient for the universe, or is it an infinite regression of cause and effects?

2) c) If there is an original cause how did that happen? Self-creation is not reasonable for it implies that nothing created something.

2) d) i) If chance happenstance then why are the laws of nature sustainable and predictable and ii) why do we find reasons that we are able to put into mathematical principles in an indifferent universe?

I believe and would be willing to offer substantiated evidence from the biblical standpoint as to its reasonableness. That would be a detailed explanation. One of many pieces of evidence has to do with history and prophecy. Another is the internal consistency of the 66 different writings concerning the themes. A third would be the typology of most of the OT in reflecting Jesus Christ that is revealed in the NT in spiritual truths. Another would be the reasonableness of the biblical God in explanation morality. I would argue He is necessary for making sense of it.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4303-jeff-goldblum-challenge-making-sense-of-atheism

-->

@PressF4Respect

All of that is through your modern, Western, Judeo-Christian worldview. For example, while you might find abortions immoral, others would argue that it is immoral to deny a woman an abortion. (I think we talked about this before in an old thread.)

I would not classify Judeo-Christianity as a modern worldview.

Yes, we probably did discuss it before but since you applied that as your example I will once again respond.

Abortion is the taking of innocent human life. Do you find that immoral? Once you lose the concept of equal justice anything goes. Injustice is something that you would not want to be applied to you. I believe the only time it is immoral to deny a woman an abortion is when doing so will result in the loss of her life.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

Open Invitation: Street Epistemology

-->

@Jeff_Goldblum

Go for it

A challenge for Jeff Goldblum:

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

As you have challenged belief in God I challenge you to make sense of your atheistic beliefs in regards to origins of 1) existence, 2) the universe, 3) life, 4) logic, 5) truth, 6) morality and 7) other things. Just like your challenge to believers in God, my challenge to you is to make sense of and show your belief is more reasonable than my belief. As for my belief, it is in the Christian God and no other. I do not defend other gods as justifiable.

So the questions begin. Questions 1 & 2 are similar so I will include both of them here.

1) What is your explanation of the origins of existence? Why does anything exist?

2) How did the existence of this universe happen?

Is your worldview capable of making sense of these first two questions?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

It's unlikely that a true atheist would care about such things.

A true atheist would say that good and evil are simply variable human concepts.

How can a true atheist determine anything is moral? Is it not all personal taste, a like, a preference? If so, what makes what a society like Nazi Germany or North Korea any worse or better than any other society? If it is not worse, just personal preference, why judge it as worse? It would be nothing more than something you like or dislike.

As an atheist, do you get a moral "better" or "right" out of what is? If there is no ultimate standard or measure why should I believe the one you believe is good or right?

Even some deists might come to the same conclusion.

Various deists might consider good and evil differently...This would largely depend upon where when and how they were formatively conditioned.

Some Christian deists might say that God created us and just left us to get on with things....This would seem pretty logical, as this is what we actually do.....So if I "think about it" and if I was less sceptical of fantastical creation hypotheses, I would probably concur with this logical Christian approach.

Even if Christians do believe God wound up the world and left it, that is not biblical teaching. The Bible writings say God revealed, God spoke to humanity and human beings recorded the transaction that took place.

Just be tolerant and respectful of others....There we are, that's my advice....No god required.

Why is your advice necessary for me to believe as anything other than nonsense? If it is not a necessary or self-evident truth, what is the point in my believing you?

To tolerate evil is wickedness. How do you determine evil? Tolerance without justice is a travesty. How do you get justice? Tolerance suggests we allow others to have beliefs that we do not agree with, or believe to be the case, or are contrary to our beliefs. Tolerance should go so far and no further.

I can tolerate that you have a right to believe what is wrong. That is your prerogative. But, once what you do is evil, like torturing innocent human beings, or burning down police precincts, looting, robbing, it should be intolerant and wrong, not acceptable. But what if your concept of justice is different than mine? Who then has a justified true belief or is right to what is the case? Can you say there is a truth to morality (the moral "best" to compare better and good against) or is it all relative and shifting?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

Open Invitation: Street Epistemology

-->

@Jeff_Goldblum

If you believe in God, consider this an open invitation to participate in Street Epistemology (SE). Definition of SE:
While definitions vary, it's generally accepted that Street Epistemology is a conversational tool that helps people reflect on the quality of their reasons and the reliability of their methods used to derive one's confidence level in their deeply-held beliefs.
Should you accept, I will politely question you about your God belief in a separate forum chat. It will be a one-on-one conversation. My questioning will be respectful and you will be free to end the conversation at any time. The goal is not to turn you into an atheist; rather, the goal is to explore the basis for your belief.
1

I would also openly invite you to participate and account for your atheistic belief in which I will try to politely ask you about what you believe and how it makes sense of origins of existence, the universe, life, logic, truth, morality and other things. Are you in?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Is-ought.html

-->

@zedvictor4

Illusion...What about delusion.

Sure, you could argue both ways.

Assuming that supernatural concepts are real and not requiring of any thing other than imaginary, supernatural evidence...sort of self perpetuating delusion.

They are not "self-perpetuating delusion" if they are real. The options are either your worldview is delusional, mine is, or both are, but which is more reasonable? As pointed out in other posts, and you have largely FAILED to address, your worldview (opposed to the biblical God) has not been able to make sense of core presuppositions.

The hypothesis is fine, but substantiate it with real evidence, as your intransigent belief in a supernatural god that you create in your own image, is currently no more worthy than a god fashioned in wood or stone.

What evidence would you accept? That is the issue here. No matter what I offered it seems you will scoff at it without in-depth discussion, just superficial BS. Get to making sense of your core presuppositions, devoid of the Christian God. That's what I am interested in. I challenge you to make sense of your core building blocks, the things everything else rests upon.

Make sense of your "chance" belief devoid of the biblical God. If you believe in a personal God, which one makes sense? There are only a few major beliefs that think of a personal, omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, immutable God. Other than that you are left with things originating from chance happenstance.

I have never advised anyone to make their own god...I don't know where you got this non-sense from...The same place as all the other non-sense I suppose.

Post 41:

"In other words, we created gods in our own image... Though we had no clue as to where it was hiding out....Perhaps on top of an unclimbable mountain or perhaps up in the clouds or perhaps on the moon or perhaps on a star...Though as we gained access to our immediate environment and our understanding of the universe increased, god became more and more elusive. So much so, that it now can only be found outside of our time continuum...Where ever that might be."

Post 46:

"My advice to traditionally conditioned theists, is to throw away those archaic mythological hypotheses and rethink "God" in a modern technological and ongoing evolutionary context."

I reiterate....I err on the side of universal purpose and merely suggest that the evolutionary development of matter may also have a related purpose, so I therefore refer to this as a god principle.....Basically, a supposition... A perceptible process...Therefore, assuming a purpose and an outcome.

Universal purpose? From what? Purpose requires intentional mindful being. Which intentional being are you suggesting that purpose comes from?

"[E]volutionary development of matter may also have a related purpose" from what? Again, this is nonsense unless you are proposing a mindful being. If so which one? Let's discuss this mindful being or how you get purpose from something devoid of mind? Again, what you are speaking of is getting an ought from an is, or put otherwise, the is/ought fallacy.

It seeks to make a value of a fact or to derive a moral imperative from the description of a state of affairs.

Not quite the same as advising that there is an uncreated imaginary god, in an uncreated imaginary time continuum. Nonsense exacerbated by the obvious contradiction that you are attempting to prove creation, with imaginary non-created evidence.

The two most cited causes for the origins of the universe are creation or chance happenstance. Merging from chance happenstance, if not originating (i.e., a beginning), is a subset belief that the universe is eternal - either one eternal universe or multiverses going to infinity. Which is more reasonable and which one of these two basic beliefs can make sense of origins? How do you make sense of origins from chance happenstance? Can you? Or do you make sense of it from an eternal omniscient being - if so, which one?

Let us put our beliefs side-by-side and see which is more reasonable and logical. So, identify what you believe so we can continue. Get specific. If you don't know then my case stands that you can't make sense of the universe whereas the Christian worldview can. Come out from behind your mask, stop hiding, and let's get real as to what you believe.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

There are basically two choices...Purpose or Chance.

Or illusion, perhaps?

You and I both err on the side of purpose.

All purpose based ideas are fantastical to a certain degree.....Some so much so that they become pointlessly ritualistic, over elaborate and consequently contradictory.

How so? God is a supernatural being. That means His power extends beyond what we are used to. And which is more plausible to believe, purpose or chance? Which can make sense of life's ultimate questions such as origins, meaning, life, consciousness, morality, truth, knowledge, certainty?

Contradictory, in so much as the nonsense of ritual and worship totally demean the fundamental qualities of ultimate knowledge and pure logic.

Nailing people to crosses etc, is complete and utter 2000 year old human naivety, in every sense.

Since God sees the whole of time before Him in the present how is prophecy unreasonable? Can not God make a creature act in a way that is counter to the normal? Is He not free to do the miraculous for a time and purpose, to demonstrate His power and knowledge, then cease doing such things? He knows the Romans will use the cross as a form of execution. He knows and ordains that His Son will die of this method so that humanity will know that salvation has been accomplished by Him. He is able to resurrect the dead. That is the message of Christianity. The dead are raised in Christ and God has shown this in the restriction of His Son. As for wrong against God, He shows through Israel that we can never live up to His perfect standard via our own means - our good works. It requires the perfect work of another. Adam sinned and cast the whole of humanity into alienation from God by sin. God supplies the way of reconciliation. There is nothing hard about that to understand. Nor is there anything contradictory if you believe the biblical God is the true God. What appears as a contradiction has reasonable explanations, most of which are found in His word - the Bible (Scripture interprets itself for God provides the explanation Himself. It just requires studying to get to know it).

My advice to traditionally conditioned theists, is to throw away those archaic mythological hypotheses and rethink "God" in a modern technological and ongoing evolutionary context.

Your advice is to make your own god, an impotent and unreal god that is fashioned in the same way Israel fashioned gods of wood and stone. Such gods were incapable of doing anything because they were man's images and thoughts of God that were untrue. God requires we worship Him in spirit and in truth. Anything less is idolatry.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@janesix

Does an ordered universe mean a created universe?

That's my question.

Why do you ask?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@EtrnlVw

@zedvictor4

Given the nature of human function and thought processes how is it possible to be sure of anything, let alone a hypothetical creator.

Some things are self-evident. Denying them leaves you nowhere else to turn in making sense of things. I believe the founding fathers stated many of these self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

These founding fathers knew how to think well! That is not so much the case today, generally speaking.

Laws should be moral agents of addressing right and wrong.

To deny equality under the law is to ignore justice. There can't be justice when some people are treated with a different standard from others. ALL have to be treated impartially and to the same standard for justice. You have to know what the standard is and it has to be a fixed standard. It is wrong to kill an innocent human being without sufficient reason, such reason being when a mother has no option but to abort her unborn otherwise they would both die (tubal pregnancy). If it is not wrong to kill an innocent human being try living under such a belief. "Step this way please, you are next in line!" Do you still think it reasonable that someone takes your life because they may not like your skin colour, or age, or size, or your looks, or just because they are more powerful than you and have the means to do so? Thus, you have to apply justice equally or there is none.

Second, the most fundamental right is the right to life. It is a natural right and should be a legal right. That is self-evident for without "life" you do not exist. If your life is not intrinsically valuable it can be taken away easily. Without intrinsic value (which God gives us, for all human beings are created equally in His image and likeness) groups can be discriminated against, dehumanized, and destroyed at the whim of those who have the power to do so, but that is not right. Take that truth away and anyone can kill anyone else for whatever reason they like. So we recognize we are intrinsically valuable.

The third is a necessary Being - the Creator, a personal being. Without Him, I continue to challenge you to make sense of things, which you are expressing doubt on the ability to do (see your underlined statement). You recognize and acknowledge that the nature of our human functions and thought creates problems of surety.

A necessary being (the biblical God) has the qualities of objectivity, omniscience, immutability, and eternity.

Other beings are subjective/relative/changing, limited in knowledge, and temporal. We both fit that description. Thus, to know objectively if we have a purpose, meaning, moral justification, how life originates, freedom, happiness, truth, origins of the universe, certainty, God existing and revealing is sufficient for those goals. Otherwise, it becomes a game of "I have the truth and you do not" or everyone becoming a skeptic, an agnostic, ignorant about lives most important and ultimate questions. Every major worldview ( including atheism because it too attempts to answer the very same questions) expresses answers to these ultimate questions 1) What am I, 2) Who am I, 3) Why am I here, 4) What difference does it make, 5) What happens to me when I die?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

So there are lots of questions I asked that I am curious as to how you answer them. I could put them in a separate post if you like, but that would take away from the context. I hope you try otherwise this conversation becomes pointless. It becomes like the trillion other conversations I have with unbelievers who what to pontificate how things are or most likely are, but when pressed are silent on these issues raised. You see, I believe the Christian worldview is very capable of giving reasonable and logical explanations for existence and meaning. I do not believe other systems of thought are.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

You assume god is something/someone and perhaps I do too, all valid hypotheses but nonetheless absolute supposition and currently factless. The trouble with conditioned deists/theists is that they fail to recognise or refuse to admit to this basic "logic" fact.....So an eternal being existing outside our time continuum is nothing more than a highly speculative suggestion....In other words gobbledygook unless unequivocally proven to be true....Belief proves nothing, other than itself, so we therefore all speculate, just as the compilers of the biblical hypothesis/tales speculated, just as all previous deists speculated....And they speculated so, because it was obvious though naïve to imagine that the reason for everything that we didn't understand was a mysterious being of human like form... In other words, we created gods in our own image... Though we had no clue as to where it was hiding out....Perhaps on top of an unclimbable mountain or perhaps up in the clouds or perhaps on the moon or perhaps on a star...Though as we gained access to our immediate environment and our understanding of the universe increased, god became more and more elusive. So much so, that it now can only be found outside of our time continuum...Where ever that might be.

You first have to presuppose something to think about other things. The question is how consistent is your chain of thinking starting from that core presupposition(s)? Core presuppositions are the building block all else rests upon and determines whether something is knowable or just thought to be so. If the core is rotten it then contaminates and pollutes the rest of the fruit. Is your framework consistent with your core beliefs? If not, inconsistency is usually a sign that something is dreadfully wrong in your thinking.

Take morality, for instance.

Most people I discuss morality with don't seem to know that their belief about morals is inconsistent with their starting point. If you start with an 'is' - the universe - how do you get an 'ought,' an intangible or something not physical from it? If you start with God, a moral Being, you can understand why an ought is valid. Starting with yourself, or some other subjective, relative being, you have a relative, shifting standard that does not have what is necessary to validate what is "right." That is because your opinions are subjective and changing. You need an unchanging "best" to understand and compare what is right and wrong from, not some arbitrary preference you like but the next guy opposes. You understand this best or measurable standard when using quantitative values. How do you achieve it with qualitative values? They are not tangible like quantitative or physical things. If your core presuppositions start with an amoral universe, one devoid of a moral standard, how do you consistently get to "right" from such a starting point? Do you arbitrarily make it up based on likes or things you prefer? Do you use force to say what you like is that standard? That is only as good as your ability to enforce your tastes or preferences. As soon as someone comes along who is more powerful and can force you to adopt their stance "right" changes.

Morals require a conscious, thinking, rational being. You don't find them expressed by a piece of wood or rock. Morals are not physical things by nature, but conceptual and mind driven, so expecting their derivation or origin from something physical needs an adequate explanation. Can you give it from your starting point (excluding God) of blind random, indifferent, mindless matter? No. You keep borrowing from the Christian or God centred framework/view to make sense of things. How does consciousness derive from matter? The Christian explanation is reasonable. From a necessary, mindful, logical, living, eternal Being come other mindful, logical, living beings. It is all we ever witness. We witness life coming from the living, personal beings coming from other such beings. We never witness people coming from rocks or inanimate, material objects devoid of consciousness. That requires assuming many things that are not logically or verifiably consistent. Sure, you can construct a whole worldview on the view that God is not necessary as your starting point for existence but how reasonable is that view?

Beliefs are rational, irrational, or blind. We all start somewhere and where we start can determine whether we can make sense of existence, the universe, morality, truth, etc., and in a consistent and logical manner. So if you were to unravel a belief system to its core suppositions you soon find whether it is coherent and consistent and makes sense of its fundamental starting points. As I said earlier, you're welcome to believe in something that cannot be justified as a sensible belief. With the biblical God that is not the case.

And I think you assume there is no evidence for God.

Fact: The Bible says it is His revelation to humanity. That is reasonable evidence.

Fact: There are many historical and archaeological pieces of evidence in the Bible that match external historical sources.

Fact: The Bible is unified in core teachings and you find particular themes running throughout.

Fact: It is most reasonable to believe biblical prophecy was written before the events prophesied.

Fact: Jesus Christ is found in typology on most pages of the Bible.

Fact: There is a physical chain of events that is also reflected in spiritual truths that I find most unbelievers I converse with are clueless about.

Fact: You have to seek God to know Him, and in His prescribed means to know Him rather than know about Him. (Hebrews 11:6)

Not only this, but He is also the necessary Being for us to have any certainty. You and I are not. It is when we think His thoughts that we understand and make sense of existence, origins, life, the universe, truth, consistency.

The big bang is as illogical or as reasonable as a all assumed gods. Both are just as reliant upon being created out of nothing, irrespective of the particular continuum in which ones preferred god might exist.

No, it is not. If you do not start with mindful being you start with what? Chance happenstance? How does something (if there was a 'something' before the start, what was it?) that has no intent or agency do anything? Not only that but as I have said earlier, why would you expect to find order and sensibility from the senseless and chaotic? I certainly would not, but that is me.

Consistency speaks of uniformity of nature. We have to be able to expect the same thing will continually repeat itself for science and natural laws to be explained and verified. Take the examples of rolling dice with the number six rolled one billion times repeatedly, in a row. First, there has to be an agent rolling the dice, putting the chain of events into motion. What is your agent for the universe? Second, unless the dice are fixed there would be no reason for six to continue without stop. You would expect to see other random numbers appear. You call that 'chance.' There is as much 'chance' of rolling 2 as there is in rolling six. Does 'chance' explain anything? What is "chance?" Does it have agency and intent? Can you show me it? No, you can't. It is not physical but mental and conceptual, something thinking beings use to describe probability. It has no ability to do anything. Mindful beings, on the other hand, do.

So, you have a "big bang" exploding or whimpering into existence from what? What do you speculate was before the "Big Bang?" Was there something or nothing? If something what? Energy? Why? How did it get here? Does thermodynamics suggest usable energy is dissipating and has a beginning?

I would appreciate it is you answered my questions above to help me understand how you explain and make sense of these things. The problem, I find, is people who believe this stuff can't explain how the core or fundamental starting points can make sense. Belief in God can. There are self-evident starting presuppositions that if you deny you can't logically make sense of anything else. God is one of those starting points. I could give you another example that perhaps might be more self-evident to you as a necessary first principle or core presupposition. That would be the laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, and middle exclusion). You can't make sense of anything without using these fundamental reasoning tools.

Therefore, based upon your logic the universe could just as easily have exploded into existence from nothing.

That's not based on my logic. Logically, how can something "self-create" itself? It would have to exist to create. What is "Nothing." It is no thing. If nothing exists how do you get something from it? I have zero dollars. How do I buy something that costs five dollars from zero dollars? How possible is it for me to BUY something that requires money with no money? Demonstrate how "nothing" can create "something." As someone once said, "Nothing is the thing rocks think about."

As far as we are able to know the intent or purpose of the universe is what it is.

What does that mean? That is a tautology. It is what it is!!! It describes nothing useful. "You are what you are" has not described what you are. It just makes a statement that is nonrelatable.

Something from nothing....Explain this and we will be getting somewhere....Don't just keep repeating the mantra of God is so therefore.

The physical dimension from the spiritual dimension, thus not as you claim, something from nothing, but something from a different dimension, a different realm. God, from the spiritual realm, a spiritual Being, gives birth to the physical or natural realm. For us, who are in the natural or physical realm the natural comes first. But God, who is in the greater realm, is Spirit, is before us and our realm.

Us:

1 Corinthians 15:46

However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.

Thus, Jesus taught us we must be born again, regenerated, granted reconciliation with God and the spiritual to see or enter God's kingdom.

God is. He exists. We are temporal, we have a beginning. We are made in His image and likeness in the sense that we are not just physical beings. We are reasoning and conscious like He is, capable of abstract thought. The concept of mathematics, or addition, or 'twoness' is not a physical thing although it can be demonstrated by the physical. 2+2=4 does not depend on me thinking it for it to be true. Thus, it is beyond my physical being. It would still be true if I did not exist. My father thought it and he no longer lives in this world, yet his death did not nullify that mathematical principle of addition. Without mind, however, 2+2=4 is meaningless, for it is a mental thing. My mind is not necessary for 2+2=4 to be true and logically is it eternally true that 2+2=4. If you think otherwise, then when is 2+2 not 4? Thus, God, the necessary Mind is a reasonable and logical answer for the existence of numbers and mathematics to exist. Not only this, but we constantly discover mathematical principles that explain how things exist. We are able to make sense of the laws of nature through mathematics. That suggests and is reasonable to think that a Mindful Being put these natural laws into existence supernaturally. What is unreasonable to think is that random chance happenstance sustains the universe. The uniformity of nature or constancy is understood through intentionality and agency.

2 Corinthians 4:18

while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Things change but God remains the same.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Firstly the god theory falls down because it contradicts the something from nothing principle.... It's very easy to say, well lets just ignore that little issue and assume that a god just is...O.K. so the universe also contradicts this principle, but at least we can say with some certainty that the universe is.... Though at this point we also tend to assume or expect that the universe must have been created, whereas at the same point deists assume and expect the opposite of their god....You refer to reason and this is not reasonable.

Something from nothing? God is Someone so I don't follow your logic. An eternal Being existing outside of our time continuum gives good reason for the universe. Something from nothing does not, neither does an eternal universe or universes because it begs the question of how we ever get to the present from an eternal past? Not only this, but I have also mentioned numerous other problems that with a mindless universe you cannot make sense of. If you want to believe in nonsense that is your prerogative. How would that go? You can make up many scenarios. Here is mine.

"Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, the universe exploded into existence from nothing."

We continually find reasons for the way it works.
I would suggest that we continually study the universe and achieve answers to certain questions, but answers to questions does not infer a reason or purpose, we can only imply reason.

Implies reason from what? From a mindless, unreasoning universe?

Why would this be the case in a senseless universe.
Why would it not be the case.... Though we do make sense of it to a certain point, but once we have reached the limits of our ability to find answers, we then have to speculate/hypothesise.... And I would agree that at this point all speculation is reasonable and valid.

No, all speculation is not reasonable and valid. When you can't make sense of something yet you believe it for no reason other than you don't like the alternative it is called blind faith, not reasonable faith, and anyone thinking this way is welcome to such foolish thinking.

So are you willing to agree, that at the point where our ability to know ceases, your god is therefore only speculation?

It is you who speculates about some god, not me. I believe in God as my starting point and from that presupposition, I can make sense of what you cannot. The biblical God confirms what He says is true.

Having said all that, it does further occur to me, that the universe and/or a creator are both as reasonable as they are unreasonable.... The impossibility or possibility of nothing or something.

Explain if it is reasonable. God is reasonable. A universe without intent or purpose is not, whether it be eternal or having a beginning.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

MEEP: Code of Conduct, S&G, reporting

-->

@Barney

The Questions:

1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?

2. Allow sharing of Private Messages?

"Yes1" indicates with minimal restrictions. Identifying information for example, is still protected under the general doxing rule.
"Yes2" indicates exclusively with moderator approval.

3. Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?

4. Require a reason when submitting a report?

***

1. Yes

2. Yes2 - Minimal restriction of privacy is an invasion of privacy, IMO. What is the point of private messaging if the messages are not private? I feel In cases of obvious harassment or threat of violence, the moderator would become involved. I do not want DebateArt to become a police state where freedom of speech is forbidden or edited. There is enough of that in your country as it is.

3. Yes, depending on how far it is taken. All caps throughout a post are ridiculous but to emphasize a point I see nothing wrong with encasing a word or phrase in capitals. I think the rules of grammar in judging a debate should apply for coherency and aesthetic reasons such as capitalizing the start of a sentence or proper nouns, etc.

4. Yes

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

As far as we can be certain, the universe is......I think that's sensible and also didn't require creation.

You believe it is sensible to say "it is," and so do I. It seems to be a self-evident truth for more people that it is. Question: Now how does it follow from that to say the universe does not require a reason when we continually find reasons for the way it works? If the universe was created there would be a reason or reasons for it. Finding reasons is an intentional process. Reason requires agency. If the universe is not created, there is no reason for it. The problem with finding reasons without a necessary mindful being is that all seems to suggest a chain of events that keep going, an infinite regress, yet we find reasons for a beginning to the universe. If the universe "came into being" then what caused that coming into being? That suggests a cause outside the universe unless you are proposing self-creation, which is a contradiction in terms. If you are suggesting an infinite universe or an infinite causal tree how do we ever get to the present? Thus, God is a more reasonable explanation. First, He does not live in the A-theory of time as we do, but in the B-theory. We constantly differentiate between the past, present, and future. To the biblical God, He knows all three and is the eternal I am. 'I am' is the present tense - eternally present. Second, it is reasonable to think of creation because it suggests intentionality, a reason for why things happen in a given way, a way that is necessary for science. Science needs things to operate in a uniform manner, or else we could not predict any outcome since everything would be willy-nilly - chaotic. There would be no reason to expect to roll a six repeatedly unless the dice was fixed. Laws of nature are fixed. We can predict them. At sea level, we know the boiling point of water. We know how long it takes the earth to orbit the sun. We can measure the gravitational pull. We have laws of thermodynamics. We have measurements to conduct science that are reasonably accurate for telling us things. Third, as I mentioned before, we do find reasons for things. Why would this be the case in a senseless universe? Do you have a good reason why you would? If not, God or a Creator does seem to make more sense, doesn't He?

And formulating an awareness and an ongoing understanding of chaos, would be science.

And it requires mindful beings to formulate understandings. Why would you expect to find reasons and uniformity of nature in a universe devoid of original thought and reason? Why do you keep trying? It is pointless.

And meaning...what is meaning without a fixed reference point? It is subjectively elusive. And why meaning? If the universe is meaningless, why do you keep looking for meaning? And what does it matter? Why are you deluding yourself in thinking anything matters? Why do you make it matter? Why are you giving purpose to a purposeless existence, ultimately?

Though the development/evolution of life would probably be impossible in a chaotic universe....So no worries.

Macro-evolution is a system of thought that presupposes many things. For one, it presupposes that we all originate from a common ancestor, the first 'simple' form of life. Again, it presupposes that the present is the key to the past since we are looking at the past from the present. The question is why would something that is not intentional, something that is mindless continue to function in the same manner that is necessary for so many principles we take for granted? Again, it does not make sense. What makes sense is a logical, reasoning Being who is mindful of those processes sustaining and directing them.

So, you are welcome to your speculation that cannot make sense of beginnings with any certainty (at least I am not aware of how it does and maybe you can explain it) but it is not the most reasonable outlook.

The most reasonable outlook is that from a necessary mind, a necessary reason, a necessary logic, comes all other minds, reason, and logic.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in: