PGA2.0

simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

When you assert that your claim is true simply because the answer is not known that is by definition an argument from ignorance. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the more common logical fallacies before debating. Until we can clear up this issue we may not be able to have a rational discussion. Again the burden of proof is on the claimant even if his opponent does not have an alternative claim to offer.

That is an argument from ignorance. If I do not know where the universe came from that does not automatically make you right you still need to demonstrate your claim. I don't need to know where the universe came from in order to reject your claim for lack of evidence.

With blind indifference chance happenstance, there is no reason or logic. 

There is always the possibilty that there is no reason or logic.   

But you continue to find it when you discuss origins. It is woven into the fabric of the universe. We discover there is a way in which things work and a causal pattern to their existence.

Plus you continue to use it. 

Damn English is so ambiguous!   I mean that there may be no reason in the sense of 'reason = purpose or goal'.   I think that reasons in the sense of 'prior causes' are real enough, but may be not so the 'teleological' sort of 'reason'.   You my have meant somehing else entirely - that happens!

C.S. Lewis did provide a list, loosely based on The Ten Commandments that he identified as operational in almost all societies that appear universal (applying to every culture) in its nature. I have an answer why. We are made in the image and likeness of God

That's your opinion - not to be confused with an objective basis for morality. 

It was C.S. Lewis' opinion, but I agree with it. 

The opinion I was referring to is that man is made in the image of god. 

In most any culture or sub-culture there is a sense of fairness. The question is why should it be there based on evolution?

There is not "should", only what is, and this is easily explained by natural selection. Fairness contributes to the individual (and the population) being more fit for a broader range of environments and more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on successful traits including fairness (or a proto-fairness).

Not really. If someone doesn't think human life is special, then they likely have been or will be removed from the human population through self inflicted or societal exile/death.

Take a look at all the dictators and oligarchies around the world that do just fine by exploiting and devaluing human life. 

I don't consider this a valid point. We're not talking about extremes, but your average persons. Even still, I think you can find such people have a concern for other persons, but that that concern is stunted or the in-group is very limited.

Evolution doesn't build morality, but through it our nature has been shaped. Actions which contribute to well being of the individual and/or group make it more likely for an individual within a social species to reproduce. Continue this for millennium and it's not hard to see how a social species can revere beneficial acts and a proto-morality begins to form. We can observe these proto-moralities in other primates, dolphins, canines, felines, etc., and I bet you'll not argue these were made in the 'image of god

Well-being in whose mind? Kim Jong-un's? 

Extreme examples addressed above. Since you've not addressed it, how do you explain morality in non-human (not created in the image of God) animals? 

I'm not pleading for infinite regression.

I agree you are not pleading infinite regression. You have chosen to go with a special pleading fallacy instead. The cosmological argument must contain one or the other. Also in order to use it as an argument for a specific god concept comits a black and white fallacy.

With blind indifference chance happenstance, there is no reason or logic. 

There is always the possibilty that there is no reason or logic.   

God transcends His creation

Can you demonstrate this? If you cannot it invalidates the rest of your argument although even if you can prove that something exists transcendent of time and space (whatever that means) and that this thing whatever it Is caused something that lead to the causal chain that set off the big bang the rest of your argument still makes a lot of assumptions and is on shaky ground.

Either nothing can exist without a cause in which case what caused your god(s) or at least one thing can exist without a cause in which case why could that one thing not be the universe itself?

Infinite regression or special pleading take your pick but the cosmological argument is built on one or the other. Further it cannot by itself lead to any particular god concept without committing a black and white fallacy.

I have not made a claim we are still addressing yours and we have yet to get to the actual question which I thought was the central point of our discussion. What makes the morality you follow anything other than a subjective opinion?

C.S. Lewis did provide a list, loosely based on The Ten Commandments that he identified as operational in almost all societies that appear universal (applying to every culture) in its nature. I have an answer why. We are made in the image and likeness of God

That's your opinion - not to be confused with an objective basis for morality. What is not an opinion is that there are certain actions which are good for human well being and some that are not. The ten commandments is, at best, a partial list of actions which can be moral.

Once we agree? The problem is agreeing.

Not really. If someone doesn't think human life is special, then they likely have been or will be removed from the human population through self inflicted or societal exile/death. 

How can it (evolution) build it (morality) in when there is no intent to do so? 

Evolution doesn't build morality, but through it our nature has been shaped. Actions which contribute to well being of the individual and/or group make it more likely for an individual within a social species to reproduce. Continue this for millennium and it's not hard to see how a social species can revere beneficial acts and a proto-morality begins to form. We can observe these proto-moralities in other primates, dolphins, canines, felines, etc., and I bet you'll not argue these were made in the 'image of god

For one thing, there is no ultimate justice.

Ok. So what? Morality is not law. It is a description, not a prescription.

Without God why is your opinion the best so that we should not end our life? 

It is not necessary to know what the 'hottest' bath water you can tolerate is before you can know too much heat to your bath is bad for you. In other words, no best or worst is needed to understand good and bad.

What makes scripture any more than the subjective opinions of the men who wrote them? Which scripture (for many religions have a holy book) is the most moral? If you can answer the second question what makes that answer more than your subjective opinion?

I'm second guessing PGA a bit here because its his idea -  I hope you don't think I go along with it!

The reason PGA would give is probably that its because scriptures are divinely inspired.   Of course that's nonsense if you don't believe in gods in the first place, but it must seem perfectly reasonable if you believe god is real, which PGA clearly does.

I am also sure he would choose the Bible as the most moral scripture because it is the one 'inspired' by the god he believes in.

i would say your link did a pretty good job arguing penal substitution with the fathers. i would say a lot of those you have to be careful in whether they are talking about whether Jesus was taking the consequences of our sin, or taking the penalty of our sin. but there are a few that strongly seem to say he's taking the penalty. i suppose all that conventional wisdom that christus victor was only theory might not be true for the early days. i'm not sure which theory is prevalent but i'd still suppose it's not penal substitution. and, we see great figures throughout history who couldn't come to agreement on it. at any rate you've done a great job giving me something to think about, so thanks for that. 

Well the cosmological argument either falls victim to the problem of infinite regression or comits the special pleading fallacy but putting that aside for a moment what makes any god(s) moral judgements/pronouncements more than some god(s) subjective personal opinion?

The unbeliever wants to live his/her life on their own terms. They do not want to be accountable and they make up their own morality which results in 

I despair about what can be done about the theistic myth that atheits just want to commit crimes!   PG - everyone is tempted all the time and almost always we resist it.   The theistic myth is that we resist temptation because of God, or faith etc.  But the real reason is that we are born wired-up to behave appropriately for a social animal.

What blocks us from behaving totally selfishly is a circuit in the brain that tells us 'That is wrong'.   That circuit was put there by evolution because we are a social species and some method of ensuring eusocial behaviour is necessary for our long-term survival.   So when we see an old lady our cognitive logical brain might think 'I could steal her handbag and gain use of the money in it', but in 99.99% of cases such thoughts don't get to over-ride the strong signal that 'stealing is wrong'.

That is what is happening inside a human brain when we are tempted - our cognitive, logical side sees things one way but the autonomic behaviour-control circuit conflicts with it.   Primitive man - and modern theist - imagines this as a battle between the forces of good and evil, but its not.  It is the result of our brains being wired up for eusociality but also to be alive to opportunties, even though most of those opportunities are summarily dismissed.

Or it's god and the devil fighting over possession of your soul. It's definitely one or the other.

[...]if there are no absolute objective moral truths then everything becomes manipulation, charisma, and force to get others to think as you (generic for whoever the leader is) do. 

There may be no objective basis for morality - so what! Moral actions can be objectively known once we agree human life (and life is general) is special and worth preserving. Anyone who does not agree to this has no place in a legitimate discussion on morality.

What's more, I think our evolutionary heritage has built into us our appreciation of life. If so, morality has an objective basis.

I think you get too caught up on your subjective desire for an absolute, objective being to realize one is not needed for morality and that there is possibly a much more plausible objective basis if you must have such a foundation.

What about a religious world view makes morality more than a subjective opinion?

Nazi Germany is justifiable to so many, 

This is rather an awkward reference for a christian to use since Nazi belt buckles read "god with us" and Hitler used Christian rhetoric in his anti Jewish campaign. Really cringeworthy.

We've travelled rather far afield and I'm afraid our original conversation may be lost in the shuffle. Let us refocus.

What makes the morality you follow anything other than a subjective opinion about right and wrong?

" If you follow the causal chain back to the eternal God there is every reason for consistency in such a worldview. From the mindful come other minds; from a logical reasoning Mind comes other such minds; from intentional self-existing Being comes other intentional beings. Consistent throughout from the Christian worldview." ...

So God mind's came from......?

Or is 'because God' the proverbial 'out' and the logical chain you created may be broken at the first link it attempted to forge?

i am a christian. i believe Jesus is the Messiah and the son of the living God as Peter said. Jesus is god and was raised from the dead. i believe in him and rely on him. i believe all the essentials that define 'christian'. except i'm a contrarian to mainstream western christianity on the atonement. i dont view the requirements of faith to be saved to be clear, but i think i meet the basics well enough. if you think the requirements are clear, i could debate you on that point.

i argue though that my atonement views are more orthodox though, and note that you have not shown much proof from the early church that the penal part of penal substitution is true.

i do respect the information you gave about goats. that to me says substitution might be true, or satisfaction, generally. not so sure about extending it to the penal substitution aspects though.

Let me be clear. I base my morality on what promotes harm versus well being so by my personal standard the acts you described are immoral. The difference is that I understand that this is simply my own personal moral code (and incidentally tends to be the moral code of most humans in the geographic location I inhabit) torture and cruelty of humans is "wrong" to me but there is no observable reason to think that morality exists absent humans to assign moral values. 

Also for clarity the problem of suffering isn't a problem unless there is an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent ruler of the universe and only because in that case we would not expect to observe suffering on the universe. If no force guides events other than cause and effect we would reasonably expect suffering and contentment to be equally probable, which would appear to be the case.

The problem of suffering is a logical problem not an actual problem. I mean it is an actual problem too but in a causal universe with no god(s) it is not logically inconsistent with the reality we observe.

Mine is built upon God's word and what I see of the world in relation to His word. Thus we have different starting points/ideas.

Mine is based on reality and an understanding of the world around us while yours is based on the words of ignorant goat herders who lived centuries ago. You're living in the past with myths and superstitions.

There are some things that are self-evident truths

In reality, yes. In your worldview, no.

 yet hard to prove from an empirical standpoint because they are abstract or non-physical in their nature

Which is the exact same thing as non-existent.

My knowledge is micro-thin.  But I don't have to make sense of everything.

Your knowledge is literally non-existent and you have yet to make sense of anything.

The question isn't whether humans have intrinsic worth, but at what point a collection of cells becomes human.

You mentioned the problem of evil. I actually don't generally use the term evil. For me it is the problem of suffering.

Whether you believe abortion is right, or wrong or you are neutral on the subject I think we can agree that unwanted pregnancy is the underlying issue and the numbers show that incidents of unwanted pregnancy go sharply down when people have access the reproductive health care and education about reproductive health. That being the case I would think that you agree that the best thing would be to have well funded and easily accessible family planning centers and yet I find that much of the vocal opponents of abortion also tend to be for the refunding and or shutting down of family planning centers. Is that the case with you? Do you feel that family planning centers like planned parenthood should be refunded and or shut down?

i'll wait for you to show me where penal substitution exists in the early church. i know you can find some substutionary language, but it's not necessarily wrong to say christus victor has substitutionary elements in it. that is, he defeated death so that we can live. we can never defeat death as we are mere sinners. unlike you argue my point is, i dont think we can stand before god on our own merits. 

this link distinguishes statisfaction theory with penal substituion. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement#Development_of_the_theory

i'm not sure i'm being accurate to say christus victor includes substitution. i think the way it's formulated, i don't see why not. the only thing i would insist upon, is that it's not a penal substittue. that idea is pagan in origin and has no basis in the early church. 

the bible does say to hold fast to the early church teachings both in what is passed down and not just what is written

here is an illuminating article on the world propitiation... 

"Propitiation is a word that in not in common use today. Proponents of Penal Substitution use it frequently, primarily referring to Romans 3:25

"(Christ Jesus) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God"

This is the passage that Luther was struggling with in yesterday's post and begins with Paul's statement "Now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known... This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe". We saw that this righteousness "apart from law" was about God setting things right when we trust in him to work for us and in us. It involves a fundamental change in how we understand righteousness and justice, not as performance, but "apart from law" as something God does for sinners. But how does that work? All are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" but how did it come? In the next verse (3:25) Paul says it was through the cross. And here we find that word (at least in King James) "propitiation".

Propitiation literally means "to make favorable". It is similar to words like appeasement (Lit "to make peace") and Pacify (again to bring peace). However with all of these the context is placed on the idea of turning aside another's wrath usually through a gift or offering. The immediate difficulty with such as idea is that God does not need to be "made favorable" since he is the initiator of reconciliation. God is the one who "first loved us". It is vital to note that virtually no major proponent of Penal Substitution sees the cross as God's favor being purchased through sacrifice (which is what propitiation means) since this represents a pagan idea of sacrifice. John Stott writes that propitiation "does not make God gracious...God does not love us because Christ died for us, Christ died for us because God loves us" (The Cross of Christ p.174) Calvin writes "Our being reconciled by the death of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us"(Institutes II 16:4)

Secondly, since it is God who makes the propitiation this amounts to "God paying God". You cannot propitiate yourself any more than you can steal from yourself or bribe yourself. What it amounts to is a word being stretched beyond the breaking point until it no longer fits. Propitiation is a concept that comes from a pagan understanding of the sacrifices where the sacrifice purchased the gods favor and humor. That is not the case here since it is God who makes the offering of himself.

So how did the word "propitiation" get into Romans 3:25? The original Greek word is hilasterion. Hilasterion is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew kapporeth which refers to the Mercy Seat of the Arc. Luther in his translation of the Bible renders Hilasterion as "Gnadenstuhl" which is German for Mercy Seat. In context this means that "God has set forth Jesus as the mercy seat (the place where atonement and expiation happen) through faith in his blood". Jesus is thus "the place where we find mercy". Many new translations render Hislateron for this reason as "expiate" because the Temple Sacrifices to not have an element of appeasing of wrath in them and thus this seems to be a more fitting translation if it refers to the Mercy Seat in the Temple. Expiation literally means "to make pious" (similar to sanctify) and implies either the removal or cleansing of sin.

The idea of propitiation includes that of expiation as its means. We are "made favorable" (propitiation) when our sin is removed (expiation). The problem is not that God is unwilling or unloving (propitiation), but that our sin causes a real break in relationship. As with any relationship, that break must be mended. This is what expiation refers to. Expiation is about cleaning or removing of sin and has no reference to quenching God's righteous anger. The difference is that the object of expiation is sin, not God. Grammatically, one propitiates a person, and one expiates a problem. You cannot expiate (remove) a person or God, nor can one propitiate (make favorable) sin. Christ's death was therefore both an expiation and a propitiation. By expiating (removing the problem of) sin God was made propitious (favorable) to us. Again not because God then suddenly loved us, but because the break in the relationship was mended.

Theologians stress the idea of propitiation because it specifically addresses the aspect of the atonement dealing with God's wrath. Leon Morris for instance argued for the translation of "propitiation" in Romans 3:25 because he said the thrust of Paul in Romans up til then had been on God's wrath. This is true. However the way that that wrath was dealt with was not though the anger of God being pacified through a gift (propitiation) but rather though God actually solving the problem by removing our sin as a doctor remove3s a cancer (expiation) thus making us "right".

Given then that virtually no proponent of Penal Substitution uses the word propitiation (or appeasement) as it is actually defined in English, it seems a bad word to use that leads to a false understanding of God as one who demands to be paid before he will love us rather than a God who pays what he does not owe because he loves us so much and gives his own life for us. God is not "made favorable" to us through a gift, rather God makes us favorable by giving his life."

all the quotes you use could be used for ' christus victor' too. we believe Jesus died for our sins. we just don't believe he died to replace us in appeasing God's wrath, penal substitution. 

if your theory is so orthodox, why isn't it ever talked about in the early church? it was invented by st anslem a thousand years after Jesus.

We all start with foundational beliefs that everything else is built upon.

Foundations are not built on beliefs, they are built on the natural world around us, which is why we have science, to help us learn and understand our world and how it affects us.

I presuppose God as the reason and can make sense of origins.

No, you don't presuppose anything, it's all written down for you by people who had no clue of the world around, who were steeped in myths and superstitions, believed magic existed and had no concept of how to gain knowledge or what to do with it. It's how people lived and behaved centuries ago, not today.

There is no sense to be made from a mindless universe.

The universe is mindless, its not a giant brain. Its made of dust and gas and many other compounds, none of them with brains.

That is not a comfortable thought.

That's the difference, you don't like the way reality really is, its not a comfortable thought so you deny and reject it for myths and superstitions that give you warm and fuzzies all over. Thats how cowards operate.

If that is what you want to rest your belief on then so be it. 

Reality is not a belief and I have no choice but to accept and deal with it like everyone else in the world, you included. If you were honest with yourself, you too would not hide under the covers of irrational beliefs.

PGA wrote:

Morality to an atheist worldview is a relative thing. It is based on preference and behaviorism. You can't get an ought from an is, a prescriptive from a descriptive. You can describe what you like (subjectivism/behaviorism) but that doesn't make it good, and the problem with relativism is that no society or culture can be any better than any other. If you hold a materialistic worldview then truth and values are measured through the five senses. How can you measure goodness through those senses (the descriptive)? Values can't be measured by the same token

Repugnant Hitler's Germany is no more wrong than Kim Jong-un's North Korea or Trump's USA.

My guess is that given this list

Genocide

Donating to charity

Cruelty to animals

Being polite

etc

there would be little differerence btween how an atheist or a theist would rank them for their 'moral value'.

That is death SWEETY. Don't be afraid ,you will be the same as you were before you were alive. Unaware.

Grow up and accept it. It doesn't matter, you'll be dead.

The Bible is observable and readable. From it, you are told of God's dealings with humanity from creation.

Once again, the Bible was written by men who never witnessed creation. Anything they came up with has to assumed to be from their own deluded minds.

For instance, how does consciousness come from non-cognitive, mindless unsentient matter?

How can you get morality from subjective, limited human beings - relativism?

What is the truth about the origins of the universe? Which scientific view is true to what is?

How do you know what you know regarding these things?

[1] Consciousness is a product of the brain, which has evolved over many millions of years. [2] Humans are not the only animal with consciousness.

[3] Morality comes from trial and error, people living together and societies building over time. [4] They find out what works and what doesn't.

[5] The origins of the universe are being studied by scientists who still have a lot of work to do. [6] Unfortunately, so many centuries of religious mindsets in humans has stifled and oppressed the thinking mind.

[7] We know from evidence these things, something your religious beliefs lack.

The Bible is observable and readable. From it, you are told of God's dealings with humanity from creation.

And what jolly dealings there are.

 Samuel 1: 15-3

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

Yes sounds like a good god doesn't he.  "women, children and infants" .

“But of the cities of these people,which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth”:Deu: 20:16.

 

"save alive nothing that breatheth"

My perspective as a living being that wants to continue living nearly guarantees that I will be of the subjective opinion that my life us important. That is qualia not quanta. 

Beliefs are not a choice. One cannot simply choose to believe something that one considers false.

Do you know of many people that are rational who don't know of God or gods?

Begging the question, band wagon fallacy, dogmatism fallacy.

Demonstrated in arguments such as the moral argument. Make sense of morality from a relativist standpoint. On abortion, why is your preference any better than mine? What is your standard for "better?"

Better is a subjective view. They may or may not have different utilities but better is not a quantifiable fact it is a qualified opinion.

 I'm not the one denying God. You are.

I am not making a claim either way. I am simply unable to maintain a belief in the absence of sufficient evidence.

The truth is just frightening ain't it.

Yet the concept of God has been with all or almost all civilizations. Almost all people know of God or gods. 

Argument ad populum

try making sense of origins, morality, truth, existence, without first presupposing God

Argument from ignorance.

you don't know God via personal experience since you don't trust in Him. You don't see how He works for the better in your life. If you knew God you would not deny Him His existence. If you truly believed He would confirm Himself to you in all things. He would show you and help you to draw near to Him. Your life would be radically altered and affected. 

 

bald assertion

You could not have a discussion on God without first having an idea of who/what God is. In that sense you believe.

I wanted to start with this claim as much of your position seems to rest on this idea.

Firstly do you believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fair big foot and the theory of atlantis in the same way? If so does that mean that Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, big foot and the lost city of atlantis exist?

From your experience of being unconscious was it unpleasant while you were unconscious?

I will say that every single one of Jesus' apostles was executed or tortured to death in some cruel way. 

It is only church tradition that holds this statement to be true, and if we get into specifics, church tradition will have apostles dying in multiple ways. Suffice to say, this tradition is unsubstantiated and dubiously held in high regard by the uninitiated.

The Jewish people took history very seriously, and still do, because it is believed that God is revealed through it.

But not, apparently, any of the NT.

penal substitution says that God needed an infinite method of having his wrath placated. the only method that is possible, the theory goes, is Jesus dying. his death means you don't have to die as your sins are "covered". 

the problem with this idea is that it didn't originate until a thousand years after Jesus and has little basis in the bible. during the early church, the language christians used is called "christus victor". Jesus conquered sin and death on the cross, is the essence of the idea. i like to say love conquers death. anyone belonging to the brotherhood is also saved from death. so, penal substitution isn't orthodox.