Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
GODS are like Bigfoot or Yeti or Nessie etc....Loads of people have supposedly seen these mythical creatures, but none of them, as actually provided unequivocal evidence.OA's Start a a point of uncertainty and "logically" arrive at a point of assumed certainty.A perhaps?.....Ahh... B so C so D so E so F so A.Though there never was a real A in the first place...... A is only ever G......G is for gobbledygook.No actual proof of A.... So B so C so D so E so F so Gobbledygook....This is logical.
Christianity does not purport to offer such flimsy proofs regarding the biblical God and definitely does not present Him as a myth but reality. The disciples/apostles and the NT writers claim to either be eyewitnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ, who they believe is God incarnate or those who are not apostles investigated such accounts from those eyewitnesses, such as Mark and Luke. Unlike so many of these other beliefs, Christianity is steeped in recorded history, a history that includes people, places, and events that exist (in the case of places) or existed (in people and events). Many non-biblical writings confirm the historical nature of Christianity. Christianity traces its roots back to the Old Covenant and God's relationship with Israel. There is prophetic evidence that is extremely credible that most people on this social network of debates and discussions fail to discuss or investigate or fathom. Instead, they go along with the crowd of unbelieving naysayers. There is a unity in the 66 writings we call the Bible that is not found in other religions. Every OT writing has a typology or picture of the Lord Jesus Christ. Every OT writing points towards and reveals the Lord Jesus Christ. What is applied to God in the OT is also applied to Jesus in the NT! It is a very profound study. Finally, the biblical teaching is that there is only one true and living God, not a myriad of such gods. So, A does not equal B or C or D... These other gods, the Bible claims, are idols constructed by human beings. So, I see such statements above as nonsense due to ignorance and prior commitments. I believe you refuse to examine the proof mainly because of intellectual worldview biases and alternative commitments you want to justify as true. I find worldviews in opposition to Christianity are inconsistent. IMO, and from my experience, those who make such noise against Christianity run from the proofs. Those who don't want to hear the proofs show their insincerity in their inquiries and challenges, IMO. Thus, they cannot be convinced no matter how reasonable the evidence.
Then, of course, we haven't even touched on the philosophical arguments for God's existence, of which I believe the moral argument is devastating to the unbeliever.
Convince a man against his will he remains the same unchanged still. So, I can offer the proofs but do you really want to investigate them or do you want to decry Christianity? There is a time when a person's sincerity or lack thereof becomes apparent as to their willingness to have a reasonable discussion on the issues.
Yeti, Bigfoot, and the such, are steeped in folklore and myth. They fail on a historical basis. The claim for such gods is unreasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Methodological Naturalism doesn't exclude the possibility of a supernatural, It's just a method of investigating the natural. There has been proposed no way in history of investigating or confirming the existence of the supernatural so an inductive enterprise like science just can't investigate the supernatural because there's nothing that has been shown to exist that can be investigated. Nobody is accepting scientism here. But an inductive enterprise like science doesn't need a foundation outside of itself like you claim it does, simply because it is inductive.
While methodological naturalism may include the supernatural possibility, it embraces a godless pure naturalism as an explanation. It is the sole perspective of higher education unless philosophy or religion is the subject matter of specialization or an elective. Scientists, in the battle for origins, usually take a philosophical view. The reason; they are in the present, looking back at the past with the present as the key to the past (it is all they have to work with). The assumption here is that the conditions of the past can be determined with 'relative' certainty (talk about an oxymoron). There is a dichotomy between science and religion, science and values, or science and God, taking place whereas the Christian believes that science is a way of investigating God's Universe. Naturalists have made such a division.
From a biblical perspective, we also use inductive as well as deductive reasoning, just like science. So, it is no different from what you call science which I believe is scientism that you seem to be offering, your cureall for everything. In speaking of origins, there is a lot of philosophy involved.
IM(raw)O, you are part of the growing secular, atheistic, naturalistic movement through indoctrination, and you funnel origins through such a worldview that denies God as the reasonable explanation. There is a conflict of values and beliefs when you and I speak of such things, but understand this, you nor I am neutral. The question is which worldview is better able to justify origins and make sense of them, or which is true? Generally speaking, as an atheist, you tend to look at the physical universe as the only reality. Thus everything happens within the box, a closed system. You believe everything can be explained by the scientific method or science using physicism or empiricism (materialism) within the box. Everything is explained through natural processes.
When naturalism realizes its bankruptcy and its inability to explain some aspects of the Universe, God's possibility is brought into the equation. Then the non-physical is pondered.
The question what caused the big bang, is evidently an incoherent question because [1] time didn't exist before the Big Bang. You might as well be asking what's the north of the north pole, The question has no meaning. And shoehorning God in as an "explanation" really just begs the question of the supernatural's existence, [2] which has no evidence. [3] I could replace the word God in any of the aquinal arguments with FSM, and you would have to consider that a valid argument for the flying spaghetti monster's existence. I on the other hand would reject that argument as being not evidenced. In other words if your argument can be used for any God then it is not actually an argument for your God.
[1] If the Universe had no cause, it is self-created, an impossibility. What you are saying is the universe caused itself. Nothingness caused the Universe, for you are saying there is no cause until the Universe began to exist. I ask you, how can nothing create something? How does nothing materialize something? While time has a beginning and the BB is a beginning, how is nothing capable of doing anything??? Then, on top of this, you are implying there is no intent or purpose to the Universe. As a human being, you just make meaning up, deluding yourself that anything actually means anything in the long run. Thus, your worldview is inconsistent, and where there is inconsistency, something is dreadfully wrong.
[2] That is blatantly false. No evidence? There is a series of writing. They are codified into 66 different "books" that speak of matters that are reasonable to believe. Every writing claims to be a revelation from God speaking with words like God said, or the Lord spoke... These writings are backed by prophecies that are more reasonable to believe were written before the events described (be glad to debate that point). Then the internal unity of these writings is amazing in that the promised Messiah is seen on most pages of the OT in typology and word pictures. Every OT writing points forward to a point in time. Finally, what is said/applied of God in the OT is spoken/applied of Jesus/Yeshua in the NT.
[3] The problem is the Bible is not about the FSM, but about a specific God revealed therein. So, I suggest you give it a try, fit in the FSM and see where it gets you. Nowhere does the Bible claim to be a revelation from such a being, so you are making it up, reading into it (eisegesis) things not disclosed. To read in this fictitious FSM would show your ignorance of what is being said.
The biblical argument cannot be used for any god but a specific Being who is the only God. God is an exclusive God.
Lawyers don't have to have the truth on their side, they're only job is to construct a convincing case, and that doesn't mean truth has to be involved. Look at the OJ trial.
The trial's whole point is to present what is more reasonable to believe and expose that which is not.
[1] A scientific model starts with an investigation into the natural. [2] That is not the same as presupposing the natural is all that exist which would be conflating ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism. [3] The scientific method is methodological naturalism. They're falsifiability is a testament to their honesty, and allows them to be extended to incorporate new data or replaced with a new model that incorporates all the known data better. [4] Most importantly though, because science is inductive, models have to make novel future testable predictions.
[1] A scientific model starts with the natural and continues with the natural. Thus, it has its own bias driven right into the starting presuppositions.
[2] Science looks at the natural world from a metaphysical or ontological position, the position of one thing --> everything is reduced or explained through nature. The Universe is what is the 'being' or exists. Everything is eventually broken down to matter, which is untrue. Not everything fits into the natural.
You expressed yourself above that there was nothing before time, and the BB started the process of time. Thus, nothing happened, and from that nothing something became — the absurdity and insanity of the whole house of cards. Everything comes from nothing!!!! (^8
Now, if you have nothing, no money, nothing, in your bank account - what do you have?
[3] Science uses the empirical method of observing that which is, then repeats the process as a confirmation (observable and repeatable). How do you do that with origins? Answer: Scientists make lots of assumptions on what is likely to happen based on their starting point, what they observe in the present as it relates to the past, or so they believe. That is why it is falsifiable. They/you could be wrong. Once the model has too many anomalies, the paradigm changes. Once again, science is your (used in the generic sense to include both you and scientists from this point onward) god, your construct as to what is reasonable and the only thing able to answer the problem of origins. BUT, you can't demonstrate or observe origins. You can only observe what might have been the after-effects, providing you are correctly interpreting them since they do not come already interpreted as fact. You take the data and presuppose many things from it. Everything is hunky-dory until the anomalies start building up. Then, another explanation is required. And the problem with the philosophical underpinnings of origins is that one view grabs hold of the scientific community until a "better" one presents itself.
[4] Again, it is not unreasonable to believe that what happens in the present is not always what happened in the past. Scientists work from the relative presence, thousands of years of recorded or documented history, not millions or billions. Let me remind you of the working presupposition again --> the presence is the KEY to the past. Is it? Big assumption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Tales from Arabia.
Or what it claims to be, the Word of God (His revelation to humanity).
Which the OA/OA's may or may not have pre or post dated.....Logical reasoning began?..... Who actually knows when?Not sure of your point.
Not sure of yours either. Pre or post-dated what? The biblical records?
Though logical reasoning is only really logical if it is based upon a sound premise.And neither "The OA" nor Tales From Arabia can actually be shown to be based upon a sound premise.....An actual, specific, identifiable GOD, that actually spoke to someone.
Is it illogical to presuppose God exists, especially when the Bible claims to be a revelation from such a being? What evidence supports the Bible? I say prophecy is very reasonable and logical to believe.
What would that sound premise be, to your way of thinking?
Let me put it another way; every worldview is built upon core presuppositions, the two most basic are either God/gods or no God/gods. Either we are the result of a creation or blind indifferent chance happenstance over time. Coming from thinking, reasoning being (yourself), which is the more reasonable presupposition?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Don't forget these important equations:8=D + (_!_) = 8====D~~~~~
Precisely!
Created:
-->
@ebuc
1. God/universe? Are you equating God and the universe as interchangeable/synonymous?PGA, when you actually learn to begin your knowledge base with the most comprehensive { greatest } wholistic set, then you are with " G "od/" U "niverse and yes those two are synonyms as they are all inclusive.
Oh, wow, thanks for the advice! That will solve everything.
The Christian/biblical God is not synonymous with the Universe. The Universe owes its existence to Him; thus, He is before it. The Christian God is a personal being. The Universe is not a personal being.
A lesson in the laws of logic.
1. The logic of identity --> A = A. A thing is what it is. A thing is not something it is not. God is God. (The Universe is a creation by God, not God. God is eternal. The Universe (space, matter, time) has a beginning).
2. The logic of contradiction --> A =/= non-A. Two contrary statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same manner. God is the universe, or God is not the Universe are mutually exclusive statements. They both cannot be true.
3. The law of excluded middles --> Either A or non-A. There is a God, or there is no God. There cannot be a God and not be a God. Either one or the other is true. The Christian God is God. That is either true, or it is not. It can't be both true and false.
This here LINK { Cosmic Trinary Outline } is where yuo need to begin with the primary set of truths with that set all others reside as based on rational, logical common sense truths.
How about you explain what you want me to glean. How did you choose your primary set of truths? What does a cosmic trinary have to do with the triune God?
The words in the Bible are not any more the words of God/Universe, than my words above, or any words anyone writes. They are all a subcatagory of the greater set of " A "ll that exists.. Do you understand? No? I dont think you do.
Why would God be the subcategory or subset of any set? He is the greatest of which no greater can be thought of. He is why anything physical exists, including why some mathematical concepts are possible to demonstrate in the physical realm via symbols (1, 2, 3,...). The number "one/1" is a concept represented by a symbol related to a physical unit of some kind (one car, one dog).
But you are right; I don't understand what you're getting at. I don't see the relationship or relatedness of your mumbo jumbo. For instance:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Past >>>>>>>>>>>>> Arrow-of-Time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Future >>>>>>>>>
..............................................................Space( * ) i ( * )Space.................................................................. [What does this mean?]
<<<<< Resultant{s} { Past } <<<<<<<<< Effect { now } <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Cause { Future } <<<<<<<<
Causality flow: Cause --> Effect. The cause would be before or create the effect (future).
How does this tie in with the rest:
"She loves me; she loves me not. She loves me, and now we have a third { progeny } to love, or, not to love."
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YES, pseudo-christians within this forum hide behind apologetics all the time, whereas what my serial killer Jesus said once in His literal word, He didn't mean for others to take it in a myriad of different interpretations, and that is why Satanically there are hundreds upon hundreds of "different" Bibles and "divisions" of Christianity, where ALL of them cannot be correct at the same time, period!Case in point with the Bible inept pseudo-christian PGA2.0, of which I have easily Bible Slapped Silly®️ many times over the years, in his post #7 where he says that the JUDEO-Christian Bible is not a science book, where he is wrong once again because it is a science book, in part, by showing that the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth and that the earth has four corners, as only a few examples of science being within the scriptures.PGA2.0's other example of the Bible is to reveal our Yahweh/Jesus/Ghost God to humanity, but in doing so to the full extent, this shows Him as being a brutal serial killer, abortionist, homophobic, racist, and the disturbing list goes on and on! As a TRUE Christian I have to accept these biblical axioms, whereas the apologetics of pseudo-christians like PGA2.0 turn themselves into Satanic pretzels in trying in vain to discount these facts.Apologetic pseudo-christians like PGA2.0 are always guilty of this Jesus inspired passage: “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” (2 Timothy 4:3)
Be glad to formally debate you on your interpretations of the Bible. Brother D, would you consider putting your money where your mouth is and accept a debate challenge on my interpretation as opposed to yours, or just stumble on? I have little constructive criticism on your eisegetical interpretation of Scripture and don't want to use my time further on such endeavours as your posts.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
You start either with God or some form of naturalism.God/Universe = "naturalism" as does human ego that can search for truth based on rational, logical common sense, or allow their ego to promote irrational, illogical nonsense and in disregards to those consequences.
1. God/universe? Are you equating God and the universe as interchangeable/synonymous?
2. Yes, human ego! To think that finite, limited humans knowledge knows exactly how origins happened by using their common sense! How does that go again?
Consequences are both and good and bad, however, the latter that takes us further from rational, logical common sense based truths is more often detrimental than benefiical in long term.
How is that?
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Doesn’t apologetics get tiring?
It goes to the heart of the issue, worldview bias and life's ultimate questions. Origins are not something humanity was there to witness. We bring our worldview baggage to the table. We start by constructing our worldviews on core principles or presuppositions. Jesus put it this way:
Matthew 7:24-29 (NASB)
The Two Foundations
24 “Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine, and [a]acts on them, will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell and the [b]floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not [c]act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell and the [d]floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and its collapse was great.”
28 [e]When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; 29 for He was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.
The Two Foundations
24 “Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine, and [a]acts on them, will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell and the [b]floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not [c]act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell and the [d]floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and its collapse was great.”
28 [e]When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; 29 for He was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.
The heart of the Scriptures is not a science book but to provide ultimate purpose and meaning to our existence by revealing God to humanity. You start either with God or some form of naturalism. False gods are really no gods at all but human constructs, per the biblical teaching.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yep, that sums up the ontological argument.The ontological argument was aimed at an illiterate, uneducated, enslaved flock. Who once upon a time, were easily duped into believing that any bull**** that came out of the mouths of clergy, was divine.....Blah de blah de blah GOD....Oh and don't forget your tithe you scumbags.Hopefully we've moved on since then.
Scripture is aimed at all audiences but addressed to a specific audience who were not as complex and sophisticated in their thinking on origins as we are today. Thus, Scripture is easy enough for a child to understand the overlying message, one of humanity's wrongs towards God and of God's salvation and a Saviour to humanity via His perfect means - the Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 1:18-25 (NASB)
Unbelief and Its Consequences
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and [d]crawling creatures.
Created:
I don't understand what he means by that statement. Omega males are basically the very rebellious type who refuse to bow down before the Alpha male, in an overt manner that can at times get them punished, depending on personality clashes and agendas.Scar in Lion King was a Sigma male while Mufasa was an obvious Alpha. However, a good example of what an Omega Male is, is actually Pumbaa (Timon is more of a beta male). If God is both the rebellious and the man in charge is it true to say God may be Satan himself?
Your title is eisegesis at its best, for it draws your 21st-century gender ideology into the 1st-century text. Later in the thread, you and others tie in the zodiac calendar (Posts 9-21) while ignoring the whole context of Scripture and its teachings. To an OT people steeped in Mosaic law and ritual, it teaches about the Messiah and the end of the Mosaic covenant in AD 70. You and the others who bring the zodiac and gender into the verse and other verses add to your own confusion by collapsing the text of its context and adding your own. Revelation is John's version of the Olivet Discourse, pointing to the OT covenant and economy's soon-coming end, within that generation Jesus came to. Jesus/Yeshua is the beginning of the NT covenant (as promised in the OT), an everlasting covenant. For your information, what is applied to God in the OT is applied to Jesus in the NT since God is Lord of both covenants. The alpha and omega passages nowhere apply to gender, as Stephen correctly pointed out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Did you give your own post the thumbs up?I.e.,Lol no
(^8
Someone really liked your expression, whatever it meant!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Because you believe in the six days of creation, I will not be responding anymore as I do not want to hijack this thread.
It is okay by me if it is alright with Sum1hughim. (^8
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
You need to spend some time learning about string theory. [1] String theory is one of the proposed methods for producing a theory of everything, a model that describes all known particles and forces and that would supersede the Standard Model of physics, which can explain everything except gravity. Many scientists believe in string theory because of its mathematical beauty. The equations of string theory are described as elegant, and its descriptions of the physical world are considered extremely satisfying.The theory explains gravity via a particular vibrating string whose properties correspond to that of the hypothetical graviton, a quantum mechanical particle that would carry the gravitational force. [1] That the theory bizarrely requires 11 dimensions to work — rather than the three of space and one of time we normally experience — has not dissuaded physicists who advocate it. [2] They've simply described how the extra dimensions are all curled up in an extremely tiny space, on the order of 10^-33 centimeters, which is small enough that we can't normally detect them, according to NASA. [3]Researchers have used string theory to try to answer fundamental questions about the universe, such as what goes on inside a black hole, or to simulate cosmic processes like the Big Bang. [4] Some scientists have even attempted to use string theory to get a handle on Dark Energy, the mysterious force accelerating the expansion of space and time. [5]
String theory is just that - theory. Show me it is real. You take it as a possible explanation, not reality.
[1] Why would it?
[2] Just another possibility in the maze of possibilities. Ten or eleven? dimensions, of which how many we can prove? Finite minds can specular all they like, but that does not make it science fact.
[3] [4] If we can't detect them, it is an assumption they exist, based on clues from a particular philosophical position, not a reality. Hence, theory. Werner Karl Heisenberg was a German theoretical physicist. No one has yet proved "the swampland conjectures, a set of conjectures criteria for theories in the string theory landscape." You work at this from within the realm of science, and it is not science by philosophical naturalism. That is your Bible, not mine.
[5] That Dark Energy interests me from a biblical perspective. It could perhaps explain how the Universe expanded after God spoke it into existence (one such theory - the BB) because speaking it into existence would create the initial distance (it was there immediately on day one without any expanse having taken place), but not how the Universe started expanding. That Dark Energy causing expansion could have happened at the Fall where God imposed curses on the natural world/Universe, but I too speculate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The Laws of Thermodynamics suggest that energy is running outWhat do you mean? The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only change form or be transferred from one object to another.
"The first law of thermodynamics applies the conservation of energy principle to systems where heat transfer and doing work are the methods of transferring energy into and out of the system. The first law of thermodynamics states that the change in internal energy of a system equals the net heat transfer into the system minus the net work done by the system. In equation form, the first law of thermodynamics is ΔU = Q − W." The First Law of Thermodynamics | Physics (lumenlearning.com)
What transfers the energy into the system to start with? The Universe is a closed system if the Universe is all that exists - the system's energy. Are you proposing something besides the Universe, and if so, what? If the Universe is all that exists and is running down, a heat death (usable energy to unusable energy), then there must have been a began (time) or the beginning of time. An infinite Universe would be TIMELESS. Are you suggesting the BB is not true? What of the expansion? Is it really happening? Or are you suggesting Multiverses? If the latter, what scientific evidence supports this?
Lastly, why would you expect to find reasons for a Universe devoid of reason? It goes back to the previous argument,
1. Every contingent fact has an explanation.Premise 1 is a form of the principle of sufficient reason stating that all contingently true propositions are explained. Argument From Contingency (slife.org)
Are you saying that the Universe is not contingent, thus eternal? If so, you go against the majority of scientific opinion.
Most laypeople think of the laws of physics as something like the Ten Commandments—rules governing the behavior of matter imposed by some greatlawgiver in the sky. [1] However, no stone tablet has ever been found upon which such laws were either naturally or supernaturally inscribed. [2] On the contrary, the laws ofphysics are human inventions—mathematical formulas that quantitatively describe the results of observations and measurements. [3] These formulas are first inferred from andthen tested against observations. [4] If they hold up, they are eventually reformulated as part of general and universal theories that are derived from a minimum number ofassumed fundamental principles. [5] Very often, a "law" will turn out to be nothing morethan a circular definition, such as Ohm's law which says that the voltage is proportional to the current in a resistor, where a resistor is defined as a device that obeys Ohm's law.
[1] It does make more sense that laws come from lawgivers. Laws or principles we find/discover seem to suggest a lawgiver is more likely. If there is no reason for the universe or energy, why would you expect to (and do) find it? You can express energy and the laws of thermodynamics as equations, sometimes very concise and simple equations. Mathematics is impossible without mindfulness, and we seem to find mathematical principles at work in the Universe. Agree or disagree?
You expect to find sufficient reason for all things that have a beginning. In tracing your existence's causal tree to the root cause, you have an explanation for each step of the journey. What happens when you get to the first cause, in your case, Energy? What causes energy within a closed system? Or are you saying there is something outside the Universe? What would be the proof? Is it all supposition? If so, how reasonable do you think it is? More reasonable is God. He has what is necessary. Can you show me that energy does have what is necessary?
[2] Yet, you work only in the natural in the field of science.
[3] We discover these laws; we do not invent them. They exist whether or not we contingent beings exist. We would not know about them if we did not exist. But if no Being existed, would they? That is the big question.
They are not necessary for their existence. They would still exist even if you do not. What are we measuring, if not something that related to what actually is? Only if something is can we physically measure or observe it. What you perceive to observe is the effects of the BB. The initial BB cannot be measured or observed. It happened once if that is how the Universe began. You can't duplicate or repeat it with the scientific method.
What you do is presuppose that there is no lawgiver behind these natural laws. That is where you begin, not me.
[4] So what? We discover principles that guide the natural world that we did not invent. Get the notion out of your mind that we invented them. Discover is the correct word.
[5] We build on principle after principle. What connects them? Chance happenstance? Or is there an INTENT behind them that we did not put there?
Since the time of Copernicus and Galileo it has been realized that the laws of physics should not single out any particular space-time reference frame, although adistinction between inertial and noninertial frames was maintained in Newtonian physics. That distinction was removed in 1916 by Einstein who formulated his generaltheory of relativity in a covariant way. That is, the form of Einstein's equations is the same in all reference frames, inertial or noninertial.
Once again, Einstein is working from the relative present, looking back on the distant past. The assumption is that the present is the key to determining the past because we can infer how things were only in and from the relative present (recorded history). Whether we are right or not is another big question. The initial expansion at the time of the BB, if that is the cause of the Universe, could have produced a bigger gap than what we now measure. That means that the distance we now measure between stars and planets and the earth in determining the age of the Universe may not be so, especially if God spoke, and it was so, per the six days of creation. People just assume other than God because they choose to look at everything through naturalistic eyes. Where they start (with naturalism) is where they finish if you want to speak of circular reasoning. You are inside the box looking at everything from there, from within. Is what is inside the box sufficient to determine what made the box?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
PS. Did you give your own post the thumbs up?
I.e.,
fzzbzzork
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
"...that such status could be given to the basic stuff, physics, of the universe, its energy, that can take different forms..."
You are giving energy the ability to take things and make things, presuming that everything comes from energy and that undirected energy can do things and sustain things. Energy, taking itself and making other things, such as matter, space, and time! Things begin with Energy! A big assumption on your part. But is it reasonable to believe this? It is definitely where you seem to be putting your faith in.
Now, what do you have that backs this up as science, rather than scientism/wishful thinking? Perhaps you have some genius to proclaim to you, some genius who cannot be wrong?
The absurdity of it all. Keep making it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
A flaw in the cosmological argument is in giving special exclusive status to a deity that would need no creator or origin outside of itself- a necessary being--without acknowledging that such status could be given to the basic stuff, physics, of the universe, its energy, that can take different forms.. What the western thinkers omitted as a possibility was the alternative that there is energy that has always existed and undergoes changes that are time and it can expand and contract and generate multiple dimensions. The Hindus and Buddhists have this sort of idea and so to the Taoists.
You give special exclusive status to Energy.
The Laws of Thermodynamics suggest that energy is running out. Are you saying Energy always existed but may not in the future? And do you think that energy is a sufficient cause for ALL things? What intelligence does energy possess? Are you saying that given enough time anything is possible without intent or purpose? Poof!!! And when you look back in time what sustains the uniformity of nature; you know, the reason we are able to do science in the first place (consistency)? Why should things remain constant? No reason, right? Or are you thinking perhaps there is a reason? (^8
How come you keep finding reasons?
So, supply the agency why things are uniform (why natural laws?). Are you talking in circles, with energy again being the unreason for everything? "Things just happen!!!" And in the practical sense, chance happenstance can do nothing.
Energy = Why anything? Why everything? = Energy.
Before time, Energy. Then, Once upon a time, Energy produced...Now Energy sustains all things without reasoning, thus unintentionally!
Ah, yes, most reasonable!
***
I love the analogy of the dice. For the dice to repeatedly roll six, six, six... they need to be fixed and there needs to be some agency that causes the rolling, and something first needs to cause the dice. That would be us, human beings who are capable of making the dice and giving the dice the agency to roll six repeatedly. Would you expect to constantly roll the six without first fixing the dice or having sufficient agency? How long would it take to roll one million sixes in a row? In theory, it is possible, but try doing so in practice. That is why the practical application does not always jive with the theoretical possibility.
Are you saying that energy is the best, most reasonable explanation? How does energy produce consciousness? Can you go through the steps?
I say that the best, most reasonable explanation is God, and not just any god but the God of Christianity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I decided to break up your posts and not respond to everything at once. In this way, I can make the time available little by little.
I will call this Section A for future reference.
Section A:
PGA2.0:"How do you justify not usi[ng] an exclusively natural as opposed to a supernatural view (thus, the presuppositions nature of your argument) in interpreting the evidence? What was faulty thinking on either Wesley's or my part regarding the speed of light argument, and I am interested in your view on how the expansion (fast or slow) of the Universe could adversely affect its age. I am also interested in how you would answer the Thomas Aquinas issue?"PHILOSOPHYMethodological Naturalism is not the same as Ontological Naturalism. Ontological Naturalism is the presupposition that all that exists in spacetime is physical. Whereas Methodological Naturalism is simply A Posteriori investigation, in an attempt to create/acquire synthetic knowledge about the natural world.
Scientism is the belief that science is the answer to all things, among other definitions. In the investigation of origins, we work on theories or models that best fit our reasonable explanation ideas. Thus the BB is the currently held best explanation, although of late, it is coming into question by other theories. Scientists start with philosophical underpinnings of the existing universe and "man as the measure" as their foundation and look for evidence supporting those natural underpinnings. Christians start with God as our foundation. The point I am making is that there is enough doubt as to what is the true model that scientific theory is divided on the subject of origins. Whether you start from the empirical nature of science or the philosophical aspect of origins, neither is sufficient in explaining the Universe. Science is based on the factual nature of existing THINGS. But the concept of oneness, the concept of the laws of logic, the concept of God is not shown to exist by empiricism.
Empiricism undermines itself in that it takes more than empiricism to demonstrate the empirical. Thus, it does not rest on its own foundation but requires another one.
Philosophical naturalism can only speculate so far about anything. Then it runs out of explanations for the reason why things are the way things are. Not only this, as Aquinas said, there cannot be an infinite regression of causes, at least in practice. You can think of anything and theory and practice are separated in some cases. An effect must have a cause capable of producing it (agency). When we look at reasons for things, we can trace the causal tree down to origins, but no further. Other things depend on the existence of us, of our parents, of humanity, of the earth. What of the Universe? We can get to the root cause of anything that begins to exist if God exists since He transcends the natural order. You can give sufficient reason or explanation only to a point and no further unless God exists. Thus, there is a sufficient explanation. Without God, some things have no suitable explanation. For instance, what caused the BB? How does something devoid of consciousness develop into something conscious? There is speculation, but no one can demonstrate such things scientifically.
The Argument from Efficient Cause:
- There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
- It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
- To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
- If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
- Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).
The same goes for you as a necessary being in determining the truth regarding origins or in the causal chain of things. Does it (origins and the causal chain) depend on you, a contingent being, or is it true regardless of you? You discover things such as the natural laws, but they do not depend on you for their existence. You are not necessary for their existence. You assume that the natural is sufficient in explaining them, but the natural realm explains nothing (personification takes place); only conscious, intelligent beings do. Again, you are not the necessary being in explaining origins. Neither is Einstein, another contingent being, whether or not he correctly identified the means or causal agency for aspects of origins. God as necessary would be sufficient in explaining why the Universe exists; God, the greatest conceivable being. God would also be sufficient in explaining why things are sustainable, whereas I argue chance happenstance is not. God gives reason to existence.
The Argument from Necessity:
- Since objects in the universe come into being and pass away, it is possible for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time.
- Since objects are countable, the objects in the universe are finite in number.
- If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing in existence. (Nothing can come from nothing—there is no creation ex nihilo) for individual existent objects.
- But, in fact, many objects exist in the universe.
- Therefore, a Necessary Being (i.e., a Being of which it is impossible that it should not exist) exists.
We could also get into the argument from contingency.
- Every contingent fact has an explanation.
- There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
- Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
- This explanation must involve a necessary being.
- This necessary being is God. Argument From Contingency (slife.org)
LAWYERS VS SCIENTISTSOften people will say that "we are looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions." In theory, two lawyers could walk into a courtroom and flip a coin to see who takes what side of a case to argue. Their presupposition is assigned to them, and regardless of what the reality of who did what in the case, their job is to convince you of their side.
Nevertheless, a good legal case rests on facts, on what really happened. The lawyer must try to determine and develop those facts. If the argument fails to do that, why would it be believed, or more to the point, how would justice be served? A good cross-examination will test the factuality of the case as it relates to what is just. It is the same with science. Science depends on facts, on what really happens.
Scientists do not operate this way. A scientist's job is to construct a model of reality that best incorporates all the known data and makes testable predictions. They have to synthesize a model that most accurately describes reality. They don't come to the table with their conclusions assigned to them.
A model is only as good as the thinking behind it, and with most models, as you point out later in your OP, they are falsifiable. They can be proven wrong. Most accurately describes reality in whose mind? And their conclusions are based on where they start, with naturalism. They start by presupposing. Plus, science investigates the natural realm, the empirical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Thank you for your trouble. I will peruse and ponder this over the coming week or two and get back to you as I formulate my response.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
Taking a breather. I see there are lots of posts to catch up on. I will resume the endeavour sooner or later. (^8
I think I left off on page 38 or 40.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
They have to come from a necessary being - God - to be made sense of. Other than that, all you have is what is preferable.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Not more doubtful than disbelief in God. That unbelief is unreasonable. Then you have no justification for the way things are other than sh_t happens. You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance. You have no justification for morality because morality is a mindful thing, and in a universe devoid of mind, how does life arise. Our life is meaningless in the big picture of such a universe. Why are you making it meaningful? You are not being consistent with your starting point; I am. There is no overall purpose for you in doing so. You are a tiny, insignificant human being in a vast expanse of meaninglessness once you discount God. You are trying to find meaning and reason in the meaningless. Go figure. It sounds insane to me, and people have gradually gone insane once they jettisoned God. Life without God is ultimately dead-end meaningless.Wrong on literally all accounts, lets break this down.Not more doubtful than disbelief in God.Tu quoque, even if you had a point here, it doesn't prove that god exists. 1 fallacy.
It does not prove God does not exist either. The question of this thread is which is more reasonable, or even reasonable at all. This question is something that escapes you in your effort to undermine the Christian position.
That unbelief is unreasonableLet's see your reasoning for that claim.
Is it reasonable to believe that thinking beings derive their existence from non-living matter? That is your presuppositional position when the causal tree is examined all the way to the root cause. What you find there is devoid of reason and yet you believe it gives rise to reason. Please explain how. Make sense of it. Make sense of how consciousness is derived from something lacking it. Explain how morality is possible without a fixed final reference point that is best, what is actual and real, not derived from wishful thinking that is subjective and fleeting (for it changes).
On the contrary, is it reasonable to believe that reason is derived from a necessary mindful and reasoning being? Yes, there is a reason with such a being and experientially and internally consistently (two proofs of logic) that is all we witness.
Then you have no justification for the way things are other than sh_t happens[a] Yes... because that's the only thing we can demonstrate happening, why is this unreasonable? [b] Were you hoping your crude framing of what reality is would scare me off? [c] Things happen, we don't know exactly what started the first thing, but you claiming "god" isn't proof either, its you asserting something. [d] You are drawing a conclusion from reasoning that doesn't logically follow, [e] Non sequitur. 2 Fallacies.
[a] You make a variety of logical fallacies in most posts all the while making the claim without demonstration (just assertion) that I have committed fallacies. The fallacy of choice for you in that particular sentence is not only begging the question but also using bifurcation, the either-or fallacy. When you say "only" you exclude all else. Only allows no other reasons.
The physical is not the only thing we can demonstrate. And, as I said, I can demonstrate experientially (see my wife woman giving birth to our son) that mindful beings give birth to other beings with the same nature. That is all I see, physically. I realize/understand logical, mindful beings producing other logical mindful beings. I witness humans giving birth to other humans. Thus, that is the way things are. In regards to God, I have a physical collection of writings that claims to be a revelation from God in which people (the writers) claim God said, God spoke, God commanded. The supporting evidence, it is my contention, is reasonable to believe, more reasonable than where atheism is coming from. God can be demonstrated. He is not a physical Being per the Bible. Therefore, the level and kind of proof (demonstration) are different from a quantitative value system. We are speaking from a qualitative value system, the kind you use when you think logically and claim there is such a thing as logical laws. Those laws are not physical either, but without them, communication becomes impossible, because words in sentences are meaningful and convey a particular message. Without God, it is hard to make sense of origins.
[b] I'm not trying to scare you off. I am trying to get you to discuss and justify the atheistic worldview as more reasonable than the Christian one in regards to morality. You are skirting the issue with your ad homs. I realize I can't assert I am right just because you can't prove me wrong( and vice versa), but I can give you arguments why my way of thinking is more reasonable than yours based on logic and yes, facts. Your claim that "God" does not prove anything is a denial that the Bible is reasonable proof of His existence. To that, I whole-heartedly disagree with both your reason and logic. You dismiss the evidence from it as what it claims to be for the very reason that you have substituted it for science, secularism, naturalism inside a closed system.
[c] Again (and I am getting tired of reminding you) the premise of this thread is which position regarding morality is more reasonable to believe, the atheistic or Christian position. Can you understand that???
[d] It logically follows that the Christian position on morality is more reasonable than one that cannot account for morality as anything other than preference. How does preference make something right?
The question is does it necessarily follow? Does it logically follow? Well, what would be the case for necessity? Morality is derived from mindful beings - it is a mind thing. That is necessary. It is logical to believe (some might say self-evident). We as mindful beings lack what is needed for a fixed, objective, unchanging, absolute reference point [whose human mind(s) would that be] that is the best and that has revealed what is right. There are disputes over what is right in every society. That is seen by our cultures in which the grounds of morality shift and one culture has a contrary view from another. Then in the causal chain, how does mindfulness derive from what is lacking consciousness? How do things happen without intent, agency, or purpose? What was the agency that caused the BB and the chain of events that lead to humanity and reasoning mindful beings? Atheism has a longwinded explanation that has gaping holes in its logic and reason. The Christian system of thought has what is necessary.
[e] Instead of just listing them show the logical inconsistency that makes what you say true.
You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance.The why doesn't really matter all that much, just that it did happen, you would have to prove that someone caused it... this isn't a point against me, this is another appeal to ignorance, 3 fallacies.
The "why" does matter. The reason we can do science is that results are repeatable. The reason we can observe the laws of nature is that the same thing is repeatable indefinitely. I liken the uniformity of nature to rolling a dice. First, rolling a dice needs an agent. It does not roll itself. Then to constantly roll six the dice has to be fixed. The same roll, the same landing, the same result indefinitely requires intent. If there is no intent (i.e., perhaps you have weighted the dice) any number can pop up. Without fixing the dice how long can you go experientially, not in theory, before another number is rolled? Not long, yet you surmise or theorize that time fixes the problem, eons and eons of time makes anything possible. The theoretical is not always akin to the practical. I cannot always be lived. Then with the universe, either something came from nothing, and without agency or cause, a logical impossibility, or the universe always existed. Over and over and over again, the atheistic worldview or way of looking at the universe and what is in it is an inconsistent worldview.
Answering the why questions give reason or agency for a thing.
Then you falsely charge me with an appeal to ignorance. I have presented the above argument before in this thread as well as a number of other pieces of evidence for my stated claim. That appeal to ignorance would be the case if I had presented no evidence for God or for the uniformity of nature as not possible from a chance happenstance position, but I have.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The purpose of the Bible is not to display scientific knowledge but a knowledge of why we, as humans exist (God chose to create us for a purpose - to chose whether or not to know Him), and what went wrong with the universe (sin, thus God imposed curses on the earth and humanity for a PURPOSE - we are only given so much time to either know and enjoy God or reject Him. We observe the consequences of our actions [in Adam], yet we try to explain them away with other reasons).Okay... I hate to tell you this but.... cool story bro, what does that prove? Either we have an inherent purpose or we don't I say [a] there hasn't been one demonstration and that more than likely we don't. [b] You say there is and haven't proven it. Prove it. That's a neat story and everything, maybe it might have inspired some hope in me once upon a time, but now it doesn't as appeals to emotions don't move me unless your my boyfriend, and you don't seem to be him. [c] I don't reject god because one hasn't been demonstrated to exist to reject, I am convinced that god most likely doesn't exist, boom, that's all it is. There is no rejection, that implies that he exists fundamentally and you haven't proven that.
[a] Again, prophecy is a reasonable demonstration that the words can be trusted in such matters, among other evidence. History confirms names, places, and events as existing and happening, being confirmed by non-biblical sources. The intricate unity of the 66 books is another. Every OT book foreshadows or is symbolic of the Lord Jesus Christ and greater truth. So, the physical history of a nation reveals a greater spiritual truth. Then there are the philosophical questions that delve into worldviews and what makes sense in the origin of things like this thread is trying to do in morality.
[b] There are plenty of proofs. The questions are, what would you accept? Your worldview bias plays a big part in how you look at the information. Hence the thread. I am looking at one aspect of the proof, morality, as to which is more reasonable to believe.
[c] Yes, you do. You reject the biblical revelation of Him that claims to be a revelation of the one true and living God. Instead, you adopt a system of thought that believes chance happenstance is our maker. That is your fairy tale.
Your universe, devoid of God, has no purpose, no meaning, yet you constantly search for it and find it. Why would that be? Are you just creating a fool's paradise (imagining meaning from the meaningless)? I say you are unless God exists.[a] You can call it whatever you want, no one has an objective meaning, or purpose, [b] what makes it meaningful to us as humans is that we determine that purpose, "I say" isn't a logical argument, make one of those and maybe we can talk, until then, [c] you seem to be spouting your beliefs and parsing them as facts, which, you haven't proven.
Again, you come across as making an absolutely objective statement with meaning and purpose that is self-refuting. You shoot yourself in the foot in your rejection of objective meaning and purpose, all the while stating something that would have to be meaningful and objective to be anything other than pure fluff that has no more meaning than anything else. It is what is called a self-refuting statement, for it undercuts and nullifies the very thing it sets out to prove.
[b] What gives it meaning to you does not necessarily have the same meaning for me. So who is right? That is the question; which relative view is right? Can that be determined with anything other than might makes right (which does not make anything right; it just makes it doable). God's existence and revelation mean we have an objective source in knowing what is right and wrong.
[c] As you do with yours (spouting your beliefs and spouting them off as fact). What you see as "fact" in yours, regarding origins, is worldview or confirmation bias. As I have pointed out, no human being was there to witness these origins. Thus we have to interpret the evidence. The data does not come stamped 13.77 billion years old. People construct worldviews to make sense of reality, and how well those worldviews reflect reality corresponds to how true they are.
We can deduce why God created the vastness of space from the Bible. He did it to display His glory and power. So we know, provided God exists and has revealed (which is the biblical claim, and it is reasonable).[a] No, first, you would have to prove that god exists, [b] second, you would have to prove that god could do that, [c] third, you would have to prove that god did do that, [d] fourth, you would have to prove that bible is accurate. Also, no, [e] you claiming something isn't reasonable, [f] it's you making an assertion, [g] that isn't a logical argument, this is you asserting them and ad hoc declaring them to be the truth.
[a] Again, what proof would you accept? You accept the BB. No one was around. The Bible confirms the universe began to exist. It agrees with that premise. It differs because it does not chalk that beginning down to chance happenstance but to a necessary mindful being who exits outside the physical reality. So, there is a reasonable explanation for the universe, a reason for its existence. Not so with a universe devoid of reason. You have this magical idea that chance can do things, that there is an intention, agency, and meaning derived from it because you as a human being have such attributes. The problem is that there are gaping holes in your logic and the explainability of your worldview. It does not make sense how these things can come about. It just reasons that because they did chance happenstance must be or is the reason.
[b] Again, it comes to where, to what, and to whom you put your highest authority in, and what is more reasonable to believe - relative, subjective humans in regards to origins or a being that is objective and omniscient that has revealed. Which is more reasonable to your mind? Are you going to reject the latter on the premise that your authority is greater?
[c] Again, the proof is reasonable. It is reasonable to believe that the universe is an open system, not a closed system. That means that the chain of events or causes does not stop at the BB, but there is something behind it; there is an explanation for it that is sufficient. God behind the universe means that God transcends the universe, the physical realm, and the natural laws. If there is a mind behind the universe, there is a reason behind the universe (explainable), and we are capable of making sense of things for ultimate meaning, not pretended meanings that in the grand picture mean nothing.
[d] Again, what proofs would you in your bias accept???
[e] My assertions deal with philosophical and necessary conditions for ultimate meaning and morality, as well as other offshoots brought up here regarding the origins of the universe and our existence. It is logical to presuppose that morality comes from minds and that a necessary being is necessary for making sense of it as anything more than power politics. Is that reasonable to believe? Is it more reasonable than chance happenstance as the cause of morality and origins? There is no reason behind chance happenstance, no thinking ability, no intention, no purpose, no meaning. How you get to meaning and morality from such a starting point and presupposition is something you people (atheists) fail to account for because you can't. Your views are non-sensical. They are illogical.
[f] Pot, met kettle.
[g] It is logical. God has what is necessary for logic. Logic comes from mindful being, something we experientially witness and see no acceptions to.
According to their kind. We do not see other living beings with the same kind of reasoning ability that human beings have. Thus, it is a viable and logical option to believe this.
Now, something you guys avoid doing is stating your case as to how what you believe is possible, how chance happenstance may have the ability to do what you think it does. You suppose that given enough time, anything is possible even without a means (agency and intent) to do it.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
First, you cut off the rest of my thought. Why did you not include it?Not allowing or not possible.Because it's A) An informal colloquial definition, and B) Redundant
I don't know the rest of the conversation from what you have supplied once again.
Fact or presupposition? You were not there. I agree that one event, the Flood, almost destroyed all life on earth. How does that event disprove the earth was made for life? Where else in the universe do you find the conditions NECESSARY for life? If the earth was not life-permitting, why is there life on it? The fact is that the earth is life-permitting, and you do find life here and so far nowhere else that we know of in the universe. Furthermore, if the conditions were not right, the universe would not even be here. If the natural laws were not precise, the universe would not exist. Regarding thermodynamics, why has it not died a heat death?As for the theory of everything, "God is the reason" is reasonable, for a reason is a mindful process.I did include that part, I broke it up into sections to question your individual claims, but suuure, let's do this instead. [a] Again, fact, "1A thing that is known or proved to be true" Not a presupposition, that would be you with god. [b] Again, you haven't proven a global flood, so let's not even go there, and [c] the fact that a PERFECT, OMNIPOTENT, OMNIPRESENT, etc, etc being made this world to support life, ANY mistakes or flaws should cause room to doubt, and the massive fuck up that is this earth, [d] which is barely life-supporting because so many one-things, could kill almost everything, is even further evidence that it was not created to support life and merely, happens to.Also, that last sentence, makes literally no sense, what do you mean?
[a] First off, you do not know that the biblical God is not a fact. You presuppose He is not, just like you presuppose the conditions of the earth millions and billions of years ago, based on a popular paradigm that has many theories attached. When speaking of origins, your worldview is not based on fact, but on the interpretation of evidence, just like mine is. But, this is one important but, when you look at the reasonableness of your core presuppositions (the beliefs your whole worldview hinge upon or is constructed upon) compared to mine, yours are not reasonable experientially or internally logically consistent either.
[b] You haven't proven a non-biblical flood either. From your particular paradigm, the evidence seems reasonable to you. There are many hurdles to overcome that your worldview cannot make sense when it speaks of origins.
[c] The Fall is a reasonable explanation of why things are the way they are, as I have pointed out on several occasions. That involves a human being's choice that goes contrary to God's good command. The result is that God lets humanity find out how it is to live without always experiencing His guidance and moral good. He imposes restrictions on the earth that affect our lives. We are only allowed so much time to find the true purpose and meaning or be separated from it.
[d] Many have made a note of the anthropic principle that things are just right for life in this one tiny spot of the universe and nowhere else that we know of (the Goldilocks effect).
""God is the reason" is reasonable," That is circular reasoning if If I've ever seen it, and "For a reason is a mindful process" also doesn't explain anything, that's you not typing a rebuttal properly.
IOW's, why would you discover reasons in a universe devoid of reason or none behind the universe if it was an open system? From a necessary reasoning being, other contingent reasoning beings are derived is reasonable to believe. From a mindless, unreasoning universe, why do we keep finding meaning? When you speak of meaning you speak of purpose. Why do you keep looking for meaning, knowing that the universe is meaningless? It seems inconsistent with where you begin or with what you would expect to find.
At least you are revealing your bias! You believe that the universe and life in it are most likely not designed because of mass extinction. Thus, there is no intent behind either the universe of life, IYO. So that brings to mind how a universe that has no intention to it is sustainable? Why do things happen the way they do? For you no reason, as you give link after link full of reasons. The irony of it all. The universe would be here by chance happenstance unless you have another solution.I think your view is vastly more unreasonable than anything you can think of to disqualify the biblical account.Wrong, that's one reason why I don't think it was designed, and that wasn't a bias, [a] I came to that conclusion from sorting through the literal libraries of evidence to support my case, the other major reason is that there has been no demonstrated intent behind the universe, there has been no demonstrated god either, so no that is not the only reason, but you haven't even proven that! [b] You haven't even disproven my point, all you've done is gish gallop away, content with your position that proves literally nothing, as you have not given any opposing evidence. No, this is you appealing to ignorance, a logical fallacy, this is dismissed because as another said, you are the king of fallacies.I don't care if you "think" my view is unreasonable, [c] I want you to prove it's unreasonable which you haven't done at all.
[a] You sorted through the evidence from a particular paradigm in which God was not looked upon as a reasonable explanation. The worldview you chose avoided looking to God or understanding things from anything other than a naturalistic perspective as reasonable. Now from a Christian perspective, everything in the universe demonstrates God. You fail to see this because you don't want to know or think about God.
[b] This thread intends to show that the Christian worldview is more reasonable than the atheistic one. I can't prove something to someone that does not want to be shown proof. As the NT notes Jesus saying, throwing one's pearls before swine results in them being trampled. I accomplished what I set out to do, show that the atheist is incapable of making sense of morality. A preference makes nothing right; it just makes it doable, as demonstrated by Hitler and perhaps thousands of other dictators throughout history, as well as with those who show that their morality is shifting and changing.
[c] That statement always brings to mind what you would accept as proof.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Sure, an ATHEIST might accept the concept of "Spinoza's god", for example.He might have disavowed the concept of there being a VOLTRON, but he certainly knew there was such a concept. So, he has beliefs about such a VOLTRON. He even speaks of the angry Jewish VOLTRON, or the Christian incarnation, so he was aware of this VOLTRON; he had concepts of what such a VOLTRON is like, even though he grossly misrepresents VOLTRON. And how well does his concept stand up to the scrutiny of a VOLTRON being impersonal?It's important to remember that just because someone knows what a VOLTRON is, that doesn't mean they necessarily think VOLTRON IS REAL.
Then he would have had a belief about what "Voltron" is before he could deny the concept of such a thing as an actuality. He could not deny something he had no beliefs about. Thus, he had a belief about Voltron before he denied it. The same is true of atheism. There has not been an atheist on this site I have corresponded with who did not have beliefs about gods or God (capital G meaning the Christian God as the true God) in their denial of the said gods/God. Thus, atheism is a belief system. It denies one form of belief to accept another, but it understands both and has beliefs about both systems of belief.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
All such evidence relies on how you interpret the data. You come to the data from a particular worldview. Thus, you look for evidence that supports such a worldview. You rely on the supposition the present is the key to interpreting the past because that is what we are left with. Many of these models work on a specific worldview that depends on anomalies that do become too many. Once that happens, as witnessed many times in our distant past's scientific inquiry, the model or paradigm is thrown out, and a better one is employed. If there is no better model, the current one with all its anomalies is continued.[a] Wrong! You don't base the evidence on ANY presuppositions. [b] The only two presuppositions you have to necessarily assume to get anywhere is that our reality is true, and [c] that logic is real, nothing else is necessary. [d] The model that is "current" is the model that has the most explanatory power, [e] the one that is the best, we work towards that best explanation, and this is currently it.
[a] So, you tell me you have no presuppositions of the Christian/biblical God?
[b] And how would you know what is the true reality? You assume. Are you the determiner of what is true regarding origins? Please don't give me that BS. Are you the determiner of what is right, what is moral? Take a specific moral right. For instance, please tell me then what is your belief about abortion. Is it right for a woman to kill an innocent unborn human being for any reason she deems fit?
[c] Without considering the other possibility, is it logical to say no God or gods?
[d] The current model (presuming you speak of the Big Bang) does not necessarily exclude belief in God. The universe coming into being does not necessarily exclude God as the reason for its existence. At least belief in God is reasonable. A chance happenstance universe is not. There lacks a reason for such a universe.
[e] Best, in your sense, is a relative term. It changes. You are actually saying that the best human beings have come up with to date, or more precisely, better than all the rest to date. Thus, I would argue that your model is not the best for two reasons. A better model is possible, and why should I believe your subjective opinion (nothing more than a preference concerning morality) has what is necessary for objectivity?
It works with the current, the present, or the past, not necessarily in the future. Best in the highest degree could become just another better than previous models but not better than the current model with another paradigm shift. So, for you, the best is only the best to date.
With morality, you see a continual shifting back and forth between what is believed to be good and right. Abortion is right; abortion is wrong; capital punishment is right; capital punishment is wrong; homosexuality is right; homosexuality is wrong. And you have big tech and big government pushing the boundaries of censorship so that only their view is acceptable on any given subject. The banning of freedom of speech and censoring the President on Twitter is a case in point, but it goes way deeper than that. It appears there is nothing big tech will not do to get its way in indoctrinating the masses, now that there is such a powerful platform of influence - the WWW. Big tech is surveilling and threatening Parler now, yet it leaves up voices far more radical and hateful than anything displayed by President Trump or those on Parler. What a hypocritical double standard.
Is that the kind of country you want to live in?
What specifically do you want me to glean from these links? I could provide you with hundreds of links that question such views, and we could then get into a link war where nothing is stated, and hundreds of pages have to be read without a point being identified. I read your first and second links and noticed some of the language used is opinionated, speculative, not factual.You took two sources and cherry-picked specific things that would align with your version of events, these things did most likely occur, you provide no discredit besides cherry-picking and not understanding how science works. Science isn't a collection of facts, its the observation of reality, and the scientific method is a process for finding the best and most verified version of that.
I took the posts and noted the highly speculative language involved, the language of what if and maybe, the language of possibility, not a certainty.
Science is verifiable and repeatable; scientism is not. What we are dealing with in this discussion are events that happened before humanity existed. Thus, there was no human to witness such events. Therefore they are interpreted.
In fact, neither of these are speculative, they are saying, "We thought this, we were wrong, and here's why" that's not speculative, [a] you should change your mind based ont he most rational and reasonable explanation, your entire point isn't' even a good one, [b] its just one that doesn't understand how basic proof works, as I have already pointed out. Link your sources, they have to actually be credible to be worth any merit, conspiracy nuts aren't credible.
[a] That is just the point. Is your point of view the most rational and reasonable explanation? Look at where you begin when you trace the causal tree of existence back to its starting point - blind, random, chance happenstance. What is reasonable about that? Your whole worldview is constructed on this premise. That is your core belief, the one you form your entire worldview from, the one everything else rests upon and is supported by.
[b] What is illogical about the Christian God? From a necessary mind comes other contingent minds. From necessary life comes contingent life. From a necessary intelligent and logical mind comes other intelligent and logical contingent minds. And what do we ever witness? We see that life comes from the living, not from something non-living. We see that logical beings come from other logical beings. We see that beings capable of love and reason are derived from other beings with the same attributes. We do not see otherwise, yet this is what you believe. Thus, it is not me who is being inconsistent and illogical. I believe it is you who created the fairy tale.
Both links are highly speculative, folks. Where are the facts? You have scientists reconstructing what they believe are models of the past while working solely from the present. They don't observe the original conditions. They recreate them on lots of suppositions. When the anomalies pile up to a critical point, the models are rejected in favour of what scientists consider better models. And you put all your faith in these models and these scientists because you think they are better than the biblical modeThere are like 6 sources! Did you ignore them? No? You just found cherry-picked sentences that taken out of context can be construed to fit your narrative? Hmm... it almost reminds me of how you quote the bible, not the point however, they reconstruct what were the past models to the best anyone can demonstrate, if you have better demonstrations, go ahead, [a] demonstrate with empirical data and logically sound reasoning what you think the past was like because you have no scientific authority, reconstructing things is how we have made a vast leap in medical progress, technology etcetera, again, a basic misunderstanding of science.
See my post in which I gave several facts, and then you dispute them as facts, plus show your view as reasonable with better evidence concerning origins, as we are doing here with the origins of morality.
[a] You speak of scientific authority (your appeal to authority), but in the case of origins of the universe, origins of morality, origins of human existence, what you are really working with is scientism. Please educate yourself on this subject.
A catastrophic event - millions of fossils buried in rock layers throughout the earth.Are there millions, billions, of fossils in rock layers throughout the earth?Is a catastrophic event or events necessary for this to happen?I will wait until you answer those two questions before replying.No no no, you have to prove that this was caused by one global flood, that's not evidence of anything, you've thrown out a bunch of points without linking anything else.Edit: Not linking as in sourcing, linking as in link a fact to a conclusion logically
Deflection or stonewalling aimed at taking control away from the speaker (me) asking the questions. I explained from a previous post and backed up my claim; I asked if there were millions/billions of fossils in the rock layers throughout the earth. Is that reasonable to believe? Then I asked if catastrophism was a reasonable or more plausible cause of such happenings? If not, what are you proposing, millions/billions of animals and plants slowly decomposing away in a plain or valley all over the world that slowly fossilized? For what reason?
Do you deny that catastrophism is necessary for the fossil record as we have it? Where are your links and sourcing you accuse me of neglecting? Instead of answering the questions, you make a big hullabaloo and avoidance of answering the questions. Another way to answering this mush is by charging the Tu quoque Fallacy. Thus, a possible resource would be to ignore your posts as my prerogative until you address these questions. But I do not usually operate in such a manner unless the rhetoric becomes highly volatile or unproductive.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
"Atheists believe in atheism"???ATHEISM is NOT a belief.
Yes, it is. That is a claim. A claim is a belief. This assertion/claim believes something, and that something is about God/gods. Atheism is a worldview of beliefs devoid of God or gods. An atheist looks to naturalism, humanism, science and scientism for his/her answers.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
A person who knows enough to disbelieve in God or gods substitutes that belief with another. So, even such a disbelief is not devoid of belief in something else. You are only fooling yourself and the gullible with such a claim.
Atheists lack belief in concepts???Specifically they lack belief in at least one or more concepts of "god".
You have all kinds of concepts of God or gods. You know the type of god I am speaking of when I speak of the Christian God. You understand such a God to be a trinity.
Atheists might accept logical concepts...???Sure, an ATHEIST might accept the concept of "Spinoza's god", for example.
He might have disavowed the concept of there being a personal God, but he certainly knew there was such a concept. So, he has beliefs about such a God. He even speaks of the angry Jewish God, or the Christian incarnation, so he was aware of this God; he had concepts of what such a God is like, even though he grossly misrepresents God. And how well does his concept stand up to the scrutiny of a god being impersonal?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Why did God create pediatric cancer? I am sure you will say He did it to display his glory and power. Steve Hawking was confined to a wheel chair andwas an atheist and he enjoyed life. He didn't believe in God and said an idea of an afterlife is "a fairy story."He said “After my expectations were reduced to zero, every new day became a bonus. And I began to appreciate everything I did have.”“I don’t have much positive to say about motor neuron disease. But it taught me not to pity myself, because others were worse off and to get on with what I still could do."Remember that he was on The Big Bang Theory a number of times.
Cancer is a result of the Fall, where God cursed the earth and barred humanity from living forever onwards by preventing Adam from eating the tree of life. Over the millennium, the earth has been slowly deteriorating from its pristine condition before the Fall. God has a reason for allowing humanity to experience good and evil, as was the consequence of Adams's decision in the Garden that resulted in the evil. Death and dying alert us to the problem that we only have so much time on this earth. Because of it, some people reach out to God and find Him.
Again, you appeal to an authority who is not one concerning the Bible.
Stephen Hawkin's belief is between him and God. He made the wrong choice if he did not repent and find God. And his classification of the Bible and God as a "fairy story" I take as no more worth in than in his subjective opinion.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Proponents of "Creation Science", who hold to the belief that the planet Earth is only about 6,000 years old, preach that the vast sedimentary deposits of the Earth's crust were deposited during Noah's flood and that all the fossils found within that strata are the result of creatures that died during that flood. The Scriptures, the Earth's geology, and a little reasoning and common sense expose the fallacy of that false belief system. If these mountains existed before Noah's flood (which the Bible says they did), and these mountains were formed from uplifted sediments containing fossils (go climb a mountain and see them with your own eyes), then the creatures that these fossils came from all died sometime long BEFORE the great flood.
From a young-earth perspective, any mountains that existed before the Flood would have additional layering to them from the Flood or from activity that happened before or after the Flood, like the pushing up of the crust of the earth as is thought of by folding or young mountain chains from tectonic plates or deposits from volcanos.
There is evidence to believe the fossil record is mostly from the Cambrian Explosion onwards. Thus, you have vast numbers of dead things buried in rock layers throughout the earth not found below this level or layering.
In the Appalachian mountain range, you can see deep road cuts exposing repeating sequences of coal, sandstone, siltstone, shale, coal again, shale, etc. The presence of neat, multiple seams of coal in the sequence indicates periods of time when the surface of the land was above sea level, allowing vegetation to flourish, die, and accumulate.According to the Bible, Noah's flood only lasted one year; therefore, it is impossible for these strata to have been formed by a single global flood event. These formations are orderly and well differentiated, which is uncharacteristic of deposits left by rapid flooding and deposition. In many locations these sequences, which originally formed in a horizontal position, are now tilted at various angles; some are now vertical and others have been found to be turned upside down. The tectonic processes to accomplish this require millions of years. You can be sure it occurred long before Noah's days, not during a one-year flood.
Ussher's biblical timeline is not the only one used in determining the creation. Some believe the timeline has gaps in it, and the age of the earth is older than that but still young compared to the current scientific paradigm. Regardless, I am not going to get into these long-winded discussions in this thread. There are various anomalies to the current thought pattern that pose problems for evolutionists.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
[a] Science says a world wide flood never happened. Let’s say Noah’s Flood really did happen. Using naïve mathematics at the level of junior high school, it is possible to account for the present population of the world, because mathematically the population would grow exponentially. However, this is only true with naïve mathematics.Proper mathematical calculations would have to make allowance for infant deaths (notice how in the Bible, no one ever dies in infancy), deaths from misadventure or disease (the Bible: ditto), plagues and pandemics that obliterate entire populations, famines and wars. Proper mathematical calculations would would also allow for adjustment at those intervals when we have good estimates of the world’s population, and then extrapolate for a higher or lower rate of increase to the next check point rather than assuming a constant growth rate.We can start, not with a single family just over four thousand years ago, but with one million people thirty thousand years ago. Population growth was slow for thousands of years, sometimes going backwards because of famine or epidemics. It was only with improvements in agricultural productivity and, eventually, medical science, that populations actually began to grow quickly.
I propose you start another thread on such a topic (not that I will engage since I have my hands full right now with this one). It is highly volatile and will give rise to many rabbit trails if pursued here.
The site below discusses and takes on such issues from a young-earth perspective, however much you disagree with it. You are assuming the present is the key to the past, or from the present, the past is determined. You were not there; neither was anyone alive. Thus it depends on how you interpret the evidence, how logically consistent it is, and how much evidence is available to make a good determination. The evidence does not come already interpreted.
***
Again, your terminology suggests a very biased take in which trigger language is used to influence and inflame opinion, IMO.
"Science says..." - Appeal to authority.
Bald assertions -
"Using naïve mathematics at the level of junior high school..."
"This is only true with naïve mathematics..."
"Proper mathematical calculations would..."
"Proper mathematical calculations would..."
What naive mathematics? No example was given.
What proper mathematical calculations? None were given.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Atheists believe in atheism .....That is a contradiction in terms.... Atheists lack belief in concepts.Atheists might accept logical concepts as worthy of consideration....But they do not believe in them.The GOD principle is a logical concept and worthy of consideration....But theistic belief in an unproven, specific deity, is illogical.
Please provide the context and proof. I hate being quoted or paraphrased out of context. I have no idea of whether you are declaring something here that you believe or whether you are saying I have said these things.
"Atheists believe in atheism"???
Atheists lack belief in concepts???
Atheists might accept logical concepts...???
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
A being is necessary for ought, and a necessary being for fixing that ought as a moral right. Or wrong. You are not that being. Why should I believe what you are selling? It does not exist.Look,I'm perfectly willing to accept your AXIOM of "YHWH".What I'm asking for is HOW I CAN KNOW WHAT IS "RIGHT" AND "WRONG" ("OBJECTIVELY").The "ten commandments" + "love thy neighbor" leaves a lot to the imagination.
From those commandments and biblical examples, we can discern how people should conduct themselves because our actions stem from such things as these Ten Commandments. Murder is a malicious taking of a life, and it begins with hate and/or anger, as pointed out in the NT. Or take a look at the commandment, “You shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14), where Jesus likened lust for a woman and impure motives as committing adultery.
Matthew 5:21-26 (NASB)
Personal Relationships
21 “You have heard that [a]the ancients were told, ‘You shall not murder,’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be answerable to the court.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘[b]You good-for-nothing,’ shall be answerable to [c]the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the [d]fiery hell. 23 Therefore, if you are presenting your [e]offering at the altar, and there you remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your [f]offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your [g]offering. 25 [h]Come to good terms with your accuser quickly, while you are with him on the way to court, so that your accuser will not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you will not be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last [i]quadrans.
Personal Relationships
21 “You have heard that [a]the ancients were told, ‘You shall not murder,’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be answerable to the court.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘[b]You good-for-nothing,’ shall be answerable to [c]the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the [d]fiery hell. 23 Therefore, if you are presenting your [e]offering at the altar, and there you remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your [f]offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your [g]offering. 25 [h]Come to good terms with your accuser quickly, while you are with him on the way to court, so that your accuser will not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you will not be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last [i]quadrans.
Matthew 5:27-28 (NASB)
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
The same applies to lies against others, slander, and malicious gossip, which fall under the same commandment, "16 “You shall not [i]give false testimony against your neighbor." False testimony harms another individual or group because it tells lies and makes up falsity.
Love, on the other hand, tries to protect others and uplift them in kindness and respect.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
An ought can only come from a personal, intelligent, mindful being.Like NANABOZHO.
What evidence backs up such a god?
PS. I object to your use of "thumbs up" as a bookmark. That is not how this tool at the bottom of the post should be used.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
[a] You cannot add something completely undemonstrated and magical ("God breathed us into existence!) and [b] then say "occum's razor!" because you think that somehow that's the SIMPLEST explanation.
[a] The argument was, which is the more simple explanation. But since you raise the assertion that the biblical God is undemonstrable, I totally disagree. The evidence is reasonable for His existence.
Fact: There are 66 different writings by over 40 different authors who claim to be receiving a revelation from God.
Fact: The manuscripts can be traced back to antiquity.
Fact: The Bible describes our condition and why humanity is in the current situation, why evil exists, and the solution.
Fact: The Bible contains hundreds of prophecies that are reasonable to believe were written before the event they describe.
Fact: The Bible describes a relationship with Israel, a people the Bible reveals God chose (and they agreed to) to make Himself known to the world through whom the Messiah would trace His human lineage.
Fact: The Bible contains prophecies about a judgment upon a covenant people and the replacement by God of the covenant with a better one.
Fact: Jerusalem was conquered by the Romans as prophesied, which brought to an end the Old Covenant.
Fact: A Messiah figure as spoken of in the Gospels and epistles of the NT was crucified and said by these purported eyewitnesses to have risen from the dead.
Fact: Many eternal writings from the time period also speak of this Messiah figure and confirm the biblical accounts.
These are just a few of the many facts that confirm the biblical narrative and a belief in God. I could get into a lot more depth and show the intricately connected and unified nature of every biblical writing. I could show you from history the reasonableness of these writings happening before the events prophecies. I have contended many times that the evidence for is far more reasonable than the evidence against, and if you want to get into it, I am willing. So, don't tell me there is no evidence, or it is reasonable to believe this God is mythical or magical.
[b] Which is more simple...God spoke, and it was so. He said, "Let there be light, and it was so"..., or somehow nothing came into existence via a Big Bang for no reason that resulted in the complexity and diversity of the universe as it evolved from the simple to the complex, also for no reason?
What is more simple, God created us as reasoning beings made in His image and likeness with the ability to reason and love, or...non-living inorganic chemical matter mixed forming molecular bonds and more and more complex molecular structures, eventually acquired consciousness (how we don't know), thus, becoming living organisms in a most basic form - one-celled organisms with complex engineered systems that move, feed, expel wastes, reproduce, and eventually die. From these common ancestors, transitions took place over billions of years of evolution through mutations and genetic engineering partly governed or influenced by the environment. The most adaptable survived, and the weak were eliminated. These mutating organisms became more and more complex, eventually resulting in us humans.
A supernatural, invisible, undemonstrated being using its breath to make a universe is indeed a simple explanation, but (a) you haven't demonstrated the existence of that creature, therefore we can't infer that's the cause according to the razor because you're [a] ADDING that element without merit. And then you're also ignoring bridging the gap between this faceless power of creativity to your version of it is also, as it stands currently, totally meritless.
[a] There are plenty of merits. I have created threads on the merits of the Christian faith; this one is one of them. It deals with one element - morality, and it poses, which is more reasonable to believe, the Christian take or the atheistic take.
I won't comment on the rest of your post. I found it rude and vulgar.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
a revealed Being who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternalThe universe is 13.6 billions years old. If we use a day (24 hrs) as a comparison, the life of a human (90 years) is .0006 seconds. It looks like God doesn't have much time for humans.
Given that the universe is 13.6 billion years old, that .00006 seconds would be true, provided the math is right (I did not check). That age of the universe you list is your presupposition, not mine. It works on the assumption of how fast the universe is expanding with Hubble's constant (Hubble's Law) plus other age determining factors. It works on the assumption that the present (what we are in) is the key to the past. It works on the assumption that humanity is the measure of all things, rather than God. There was a paradigm shift in how humanity viewed the universe with the Age of Reason and The Enlightenment.
Even now, your 13.6 billion years is an estimate, and the age varies depending upon which site you visit.
"From stellar evolution, we have estimated the ages of the oldest globular clusters to be approximately 12-13 billion years old...our estimates...the estimated age of the Universe...a controversy over the age of the universe derived from Hubble's Constant. The best theories available at the time were estimating that the stars...many globular clusters had ages of 15 billion years old or more. This creates a problem. How can the universe contain an object older than itself? ...we now estimate them to be about 13 billion years old...."
"...a research team led by a University of Oregon astronomer estimates the age of the universe at 12.6 billion years..."
"...According to research, the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old..."
"...The expansion of the universe gives an age for the universe as a whole: 13.8 billion years old..."
"...we can estimate the age of the universe to about 0.4%: 13.77 ± 0.059 billion years!"
"...The universe is looking younger every day, it seems.
New calculations suggest the universe could be a couple billion years younger than scientists now estimate, and even younger than suggested by two other calculations published this year that trimmed hundreds of millions of years from the age of the cosmos...
Jee's team came up with a Hubble Constant of 82.4, which would put the age of the universe at around 11.4 billion years."
Who should I trust? You? Your data? The language above is unsure.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The onus is for both the atheist and the theist to present their case. Here is a reminder of the thread's theme - Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?OP: "This topic is mostly aimed at or addressing SkepticalOne (but other atheists may join in by defending their belief as reasonable as opposed to Christianity or the biblical God). I am looking for his justification for his belief, myself thinking what he believes is unreasonably based...By default, one who claims to be an atheist would look for explanations that exclude God or gods."Atheist: All mammals first defend themselves, then defend their families, then defend their property. This is the natural and obvious basis of ethics & morality.
Are you equivocating morality with instinct and perhaps humans with animals? Humans are the only earthly beings that can make known through communication and demonstration the difference between abstract and physical things. We, as humans, can speak in terms of the abstract.
Not only this, but you speak in generalities, right? All? Not all human beings defend themselves or their families and what makes that morally good or right if this is all relative? Sometimes they just give up or resign to death. Sometimes some animals and humans do not protect their families but flee from harm and let their families suffer the harm rather than themselves. Run away and live to fight another day. Sometimes property is not defended but given up or ignored.
Next, if we are governed by evolution then our genetic makeup, our environmental conditioning, and chance happenstance determines whether it is fight or flight. If it is through evolutionary means then we learn from instinct and rote habits what hurts and what helps us. How is that good in a meaningless universe? How is it good with a shifting, subjective, relative standard based on preference?
Finally, protecting family and property is a biblical principle based on the greater good - God.
The Christian standard is fixed. It has the best as a comparison for the good and better.
Theist: [a] My personally preferred version of a magic sky-daddy says you're wrong and that makes it "objectively" "true".Atheist: [b] So what's this godly moral code, specifically?
[a] That is not the theistic take but a pretty poor misrepresentation by an atheist. It reminds me of the Freudian primative tribal illusionary imagery of God as a psychological crutch in times of crisis, a defense mechanism to protect against fear and the unknown natural world where the volcano on the tropical island blows its top.
Theist: [a] Well, you know, like, the ten commandments and love your neighbor and stuff.Atheist: [b] So it's perfectly ok for parents to beat their children and [c] slaughter (not neighbor) foreigners?
[a] Again, the concepts involved are found in most cultures. It is wrong to steal, murder, lie, covet, etc.
[b] Already explained and justified. The child owes their existence to the parents and need nurturing in right and wrong, of which disrespecting those who know better is wrong and deserves punishment for correction.
[c] The survival and well-being (moral and spiritual purety) of Israel depended on not being overrun by these hostile foreigners and absorbed into these cultures and influenced by false gods.
Theist: Of course not!!Atheist: I think your godly moral code needs more detail. It covers some basics, but [d] relies too much on interpretation for behaviors not specifically mentioned.Atheist: For example, when does your godly moral code indicate that it's morally justified to attack a foreign country with deadly force? That would seem to be a big one.
[d] The Bible claims to be a revelation from God so how it is interpreted is important. A proper interpretation will gain an understanding of what the Author means.
Interpret this:
Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of mankind was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.
Now the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked sinners against the Lord.
Deuteronomy 9:3-5 (NASB)
3 So be aware today that it is the Lord your God who is crossing over ahead of you as a consuming fire. He will destroy them and He will subdue them before you, so that you may drive them out and eliminate them quickly, just as the Lord has spoken to you.
4 “Do not say in your heart when the Lord your God has driven them away from [a]you, ‘Because of my righteousness the Lord has brought me in to take possession of this land.’ Rather, it is because of the [b]wickedness of these nations that the Lord is dispossessing them before you. 5 It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to take possession of their land, [c]but it is because of the [d]wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God is driving them out from before you, and in order to confirm the [e]oath which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
3 So be aware today that it is the Lord your God who is crossing over ahead of you as a consuming fire. He will destroy them and He will subdue them before you, so that you may drive them out and eliminate them quickly, just as the Lord has spoken to you.
4 “Do not say in your heart when the Lord your God has driven them away from [a]you, ‘Because of my righteousness the Lord has brought me in to take possession of this land.’ Rather, it is because of the [b]wickedness of these nations that the Lord is dispossessing them before you. 5 It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to take possession of their land, [c]but it is because of the [d]wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God is driving them out from before you, and in order to confirm the [e]oath which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
As you can see, these foreign nations and people were describes as wicked, doing things not fit to be done.
These nations, like the Canaanites and Amalikites practiced child sacrifices and other abominal practices that would influence Israel if not addressed.
Leviticus 20:1-5 (NASB)
On Human Sacrifice and Immoralities
20 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “You shall also say to the sons of Israel:
‘Anyone from the sons of Israel or from the strangers residing in Israel who gives any of his [a]children to Molech, shall certainly be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his [b]children to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name. 4 If the people of the land, however, [c]should ever disregard that man when he gives any of his [d]children to Molech, so as not to put him to death, 5 then I Myself will set My face against that man and against his family, and I will cut off from among their people both him and all those who play the prostitute with him, by playing the prostitute with Molech.
On Human Sacrifice and Immoralities
20 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “You shall also say to the sons of Israel:
‘Anyone from the sons of Israel or from the strangers residing in Israel who gives any of his [a]children to Molech, shall certainly be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his [b]children to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name. 4 If the people of the land, however, [c]should ever disregard that man when he gives any of his [d]children to Molech, so as not to put him to death, 5 then I Myself will set My face against that man and against his family, and I will cut off from among their people both him and all those who play the prostitute with him, by playing the prostitute with Molech.
These last two paragraphs are just a few of many, many examples of why God judged these people in the land of promise.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
We were derived from the ought, a necessary mindful being - that simple (Occam's Razor). We don't have to go through all kinds of complicated explanations of how things happened.Occam’s Razor (or Ockham’s Razor, also known as the Principle of Parsimony) is the idea that more straightforward explanations are, in general, better. That is, if you have two possible theories that fit all available evidence, the best theory is the one with fewer moving parts.It’s important to emphasize the part about fitting all available evidence. Sometimes, the simplest explanation is very wrong because it fails to account for all the evidence! In this case, Occam’s Razor does not apply. [***]FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN A COP FINDS A DEAD BODY NEXT TO A WALLET, THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION IS THAT THE OWNER OF THE WALLET IS THE KILLER.THIS MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY BE THE CASE (IT COULD BE A FRAME-UP).YOU CAN'T JUST USE "OCKHAM'S RAZOR" AS AN EXCUSE TO JUMP-TO-CONCLUSIONS.
Already addressed in two other posts, if my memory serves me correctly.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
[d] You say one thing but have no footing to prove it true. [c] Why SHOULD I believe what you have to say?[a] You say one thing but have no footing to prove it true. [b] Why SHOULD I believe what you have to say?
[a] I do have a footing - a necessary being and His revelation. I can reference that revelation and compare it to history to show it is reasonable to believe. I can compare it and contrast it with other explanations. I can examine the nuts and bolts of such a worldview and see if they have what is necessary to make sense of anything. I can philosophically ponder what is more reasonable to believe because I am a reasoning being.
I question how you can and if any explanation you give is sufficient, and if so why.
[b] I am asking you which is more reasonable to believe, not if you will believe it. I am using you to justify your belief as to the more reasonable of the two.
[c] Unless you can provide a necessary and objective standard, not some preference, I fail to see any reason to believe you know what you are talking about. Because you like something doesn't mean it is right. It just means you like it.
[d] Your worldview is inconsistent. WARNING: That is a logical sign that discerns it is not sound.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Is being free your moral preference?Individual freedom is impossible without the individual ability to freely generate their own food, clothing and shelter.
You mistake the physical with the abstract. Food, clothing and shelter are physical things. Freedom is an abstract state of mind.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Amoranemix: There appears to be another inconsistency in your worldview. You claim that skeptic's views are merely preferences because not based on some ultimate, absolute, fixed standard and yet you keep asking skeptics for their views, as if their preferences matter. [a] What relevance do their preferences have?No, what I do is invite them to prove me wrong, that your preference does matter in determining what is moral.There is no need to disprove that which has not been proven.
There is adequate proof. Christianity is reasonable to believe. Its foundation is firm. You just deny it, so that lets you off the hook of accountability. Your skeptical foundation is not firm. It crumbles away when investigated. It can't make sense of itself when you find out what its core beliefs are - mindless chance happenstance. There is no reason behind it or with it, yet you take for granted all the meaning you find despite this. Go figure. You construct meaning in a supposed meaningless universe. You care about meaning. You discover meaning. You are inconsistent with where you begin. The biblical interpretation and perspective: You live in a fool's paradise.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
How does what youlike (your subjective tastes and desires) equal what is good?3RU7AL 339Well,I certainly wouldn't trust you totell me my likes and dislikes.PGA2.0 431You are evading the question, trying to turn it back on me to escape explanation. It is a ploy I have witnessed for those who have nothing to offer use.I know the feeling. On debate.org I have debated a guy who forgot to answer hundreds of questions. ;)
I did not forget. I got to the point where I saw answering your posts was a futile process, the workload required too much (a barrage of detailed posts with complex explanations), and I felt it an unfairly one-sided discussion. You have a habit of not justifying your own position but mainly challenging mine, a one-sided dialogue where I am required to do all the leg work and where you get to evade questions or justification. Do you think that is fair? IMO, your main purpose seems like that of some other atheists I have encountered who have an agenda - make Christians look bad.
[108] Your fallacy of choice: the straw man. 3RU7AL did not rely on that erroneous principle. Whether everyone is an Orthodox Jew does in fact depend on the popularity of certain beliefs.
"If, and only if, everyone agrees" is an appeal to popularity. He reasons that everyone has to agree for something, such as biblical morality, to be true. Then he says that we would all be Orthodox Jews in that situation, which is another fallacy, a haste generalization.
He is making the argument that truth depends on a majority or, in this case, EVERYONE correctly interprets the one true interpretation of the Bible or Jewish Scriptures moral code for it to be true. His appeal is to EVERYONE agreeing to this (If and only if). I find that absurd. Truth, as I said, is true no matter who thinks otherwise and no respecter of persons.
Thence, "truth depends on everyone agreeing" is wrong. He falsely perceives that to interpret biblical morality correctly, everyone needs to agree on the true meaning, which is the one true interpretation.
Some Muslims would argue that to interpret the Qur'an correctly; one must understand Arabic. I have had that argument used on me by a Muslim. Thus, any true meaning can only come from Arabic knowledge, not translating it into other languages. Thus, with Islam, according to some, there is no equivalency to other languages.
[109] Your god on the other hand seems to think something is good because he believes it. I suggest you tell him the error of his ways.
No, He knows something is good because goodness is one of His attributes, part of His nature. He knows all things, which is another attribute of His nature.
3RU7AL made a claim. It was his statement, not mine. It is his onus to back it up as anything more than an assertion.
Can you prove "it" (his statement of it - the Decalogue - being indistinguishable from other older personal preferences) is not the case with anything other than bald assertions? How does he back that up? Is he going to appeal to the Code of Hammurabi or another god? Please give me some proof that those codes or accounts did not borrow from the biblical account or that such gods are more reasonable to believe in by the evidence for them.
I am appealing to logic and what would philosophically have to be the case. If you disagree, then provide another justifiable reason or argument (set of premises).
Again, I refer you to what is necessary for morality. If you think otherwise, then we can argue on those aspects. Here we go: - a necessary, omniscient, objective, immutable, eternal mindful Being.
And even if you argue that the Ten Commandments are not required, I would argue that humans innately have the laws of God written into their moral being. They know, deep down, that it is wrong to murder.
Didn't you choose your standard?PGA2.0 434I believe in God who is my standard of righteousness. He first chose me to be in Christ. Then, in hearing the gospel message, I came to believe. My standard does not originate from or in myself. It is the revelation of Someone else who is logically necessary for morality.[a] So you chose God and his morality. [i] A choice, assuming free will, is subjective.[b] That your god is necessary for morality is something you have yet to prove. My worldview allows me to explain why you haven't done so yet, because I base it on reality.So, you choose according to what you believe meets you preference and your preference is the moral standard of someone who has what is necessaryfor morality. But what if Kim Jong Un or Bashar Al Assad has adifferent preference?
[a] He first chose me to be born again in Christ. It begins with Him. Morality makes sense with God. It is reasonable to believe that morality comes from mindful beings, and a necessary being who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal meets the requirements.
[i] A choice for humans is subjective. We do not know everything. Thus we make a judgment. But if God has revealed, we can know what is objective provided; we correctly interpret His revelation.
[b] There is an objective standard of appeal, provided the biblical God exists. It is not subjective if such a God exists, has revealed, and I correctly interpret His revelation. Agree or disagree?
I keep asking you questions that you fail to answer. Be honest with yourself and others and stop hiding what you believe. I am not the only one giving an account here. Do you realize that? It requires two of us to test each other's worldviews. Here are some more questions concerning this very subpoint.
Is a mind necessary for morality? If so, is that mind your mind? Yes or no?
If you did not exist, would morality still be possible? If so, why is your mind the necessary mind for morality's existence, or can you say it is?
For you to know with certainty, would omniscience provide the answer? Yes or no?
For morality to exist, does the law of logic, the law of identity apply? (A=A) If not, whose idea of the moral right is actually true to what is the case, or is there no actual case and how do you know?
If there is no fixed, unchanging standard - a best - then what do you use to compare goodness or rightness to?
If morality is not eternally true (truth is always the case), then how can you say something is morally right or wrong? If it is not always the case that something is right, then it can change and what was once true is now false regarding the same principle. That begs why is the "now" better than the "then"? How do you get better in such a case? Who gets to determine that?
Again, if moral values are not eternal, unchanging, they are inconsistent with logic. They fail the law of contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middles.
PGA2.0 335Not for those who are true believers.You don't seem to understand what "unfalsifiable" means.Sorry, a misunderstanding on my part.SkepticalOne 437I want to compliment you, Peter. You admit fault and you've integrated some awareness of logical fallacies into your repertoire. Kudos, sir.So a good script for evasion seems to be:1. Miss the point with a nonsensical response.2. When confronted, admit your mistake.3. Accept the congratulations!
I've lost the greater context, so I will respond to what is available.
Point three - Thank you! I realize you are the only one who can't be wrong or misunderstand something!!!
All communication requires that we get the meaning the other person is conveying to understand them correctly. Misapplying a term or not understanding it can result in a misunderstanding. You seem to think I am not allowed that benefit. Are you so perfect, or is this your way of beating up on me?
How do you know the "revelation" is moral?PGA2.0 448It has what is necessary for morality. Subjective humans who have no fixed foundation do not. I keep inviting you to show me a standard (other than the biblical one, since you are not a believer) that does have what is necessary and we will focus on that standard. I have not heard a chirp.[a] Although you have failed to answer his question, you suggest that something that has [b] what is necessary for morality, is moral (benevolent). [c] Why would that be so?[d] You also claim that a fixed foundation is required for morality. Can you prove that? (Repeating how bad it is without such foundation and repeating fallacious questions do not constitute proof.)[e] You also seem to be under the impression that asking something gives the recipient of your request the duty to fulfill it. However, that is not so according to the [f] moral standard of most of your recipients.
[a] I have answered how I know many times before, till I am blue in the face. I find the evidence in the Bible is reasonable and compelling to believe, and in an example like prophecy, it is confirmed on many accounts by external historical evidence. I have also argued philosophically, ontologically, metaphysically, morally, and epistemological for my case.
[b] In the biblical case, yes.
As I have said before, I don't argue about other gods, so my theistic argument is about a specific God I deem meets the requirements of what is necessary, as explained in the biblical revelation/writings.
[c] Why, because moral good depends on goodness AND justice/accountability. It also depends on the best, which would be an omniscient being. If you don't know what that best is and can't reason for it, you do not have what is necessary to explain morality.
[d] If something does not have a fixed identity, how can you say it is what it is? I think it is self-evident. Do you believe that some things are self-evident?
[e] I am under the impression that you cannot fulfill my questions or requests, so you avoid them. It, to me, shows the moral and epistemological bankruptcy of your atheistic position. It can't make sense of itself with anything other than assertions and calling the kettle black.
[f] What moral standard? Are you speaking about your preferences? How are they moral? Justify them as moral. Do you think that just because you can make something up, that means it is moral?
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
[a] 3RU7AL is appealing to his preference and you are appealing to your preference. [b] You are blaming atheists for having only their preferences, but you have nothing more. [c] All would you have extra, if your god were to exist, would be an additional option to prefer: You could prefer your god's morality, [d] while atheists can't. [e] Polytheistic religions have an even bigger advantage though.
[a] If God did not exist or if I failed to interpret His moral laws correctly, yes, it would be just another preference, but that is my whole argument, isn't it? I argue that the biblical God is God and that He has revealed and given evidence in His revelation, also by the created order. I argue the implausibility and even the contrary's impossibility, all the while asking atheists to give their evidence. For instance, I continually ask you why your moral preference is any better than any other moral preference and how you determine this? To this query, I get many people playing tiddlywinks instead of playing the game before us - Go.
[b] Again, providing you can prove the biblical God is not God or is not necessary. You have not done that. All you have done is assert that the biblical God is an invention.
[c] This is not true to a God who has revealed the truth about right and wrong. With such a God, I have an objective (universal and according to what is the case) standard and appeal.
[d] The atheist is wrong in such a case. Again, why should I prefer your moral preference? It is based on nothing concrete and fixed.
[e] Polytheists hold many contrary views since their gods hold different views. Thus, only one god, if any, can be the true view. That one God, Christians argue, is the Christian God and with good reason.
(IFF) you are unable to convince someone that your moral code is universal and unchanging (THEN) your moral code is a defacto OPINION.PGA2.0 431Some people cannot be convinced because it runs contrary to what they want to believe.[105]There is proof available in and for the Christian worldview that is most reasonable.[106] It comes from what is necessary for there to be morality. How is yours anything other than opinion?[105] as everyone who has debated Christians, you in particular, knows well.[106] [a] Says who? [b] You? Why should skeptics believe you, [c] a fallacy king who cannot support his claims?
I am willing to reason with you and, in fact, have been. For instance, with morality, please provide me with a suitable and necessary alternative that is more than your preference or group preference. Show me why it is the actual case or more reasonable to believe.
[106] [a] The argument is based on evidence from the Bible, history, logic, and philosophy via what is necessary for morality, a necessary Being. You are not that being. The subject of this thread addresses which worldview is more compelling, more reasonable.
[b] Because what I believe is more reasonable and plausible to believe.
Morality requires intelligent beings.
Morality requires a fixed, objective, universally applicable revealed source for the right to be known.
[c] Better than the fanciful emperor who has no clothes.
Again, you avoid showing me you have what is necessary for morality. It again avoided showing me it is capable of making sense of morality.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
Mopac 386The Truth is God.[101]As atheism is a denial of Absolute Truth or Ultimate Reality, it is the position of nihilism.[102]Nihilism demolishes morality. Anything built off nihilism is like a house built on sand. Morality becomes a matter of convenience for whomever has the ability to excercise authority.[103][101] What do you mean?[102] Can you prove that?[103] If morality becomes a matter of convencience, then, contrary to what you claimed, it is not demolished.
Since this is addressed to Mopac concerning his dialogue, I will let him answer it.
Show me you have a fixed standard that is objective or don't call what you believe moral.PGA2.0 400I point you to the Ten Commandments. That is the standard from which we derive many other laws for the principles focus on love for God and love for neighbour. We are not showing love when we harm our neighbours. But what does that mean outside of a fixed, final standard or measure? It would be relative and subjective. Because of that, such a system of thought is incapable of providing a fixed and necessary standard.[104] Remember, I have asked SkepticalOne to provide one since he stated he has one. I am still waiting[104] So what? Can any relevant conclusion be drawn from that?[a] If so, why haven't you provided or demonstrated it yet?
Yes. It means that morality is constantly shifting and that the law of identity (A=A) is contravened, making nonsense of meaning. Thus, two people, two groups, two cultures, can have the opposite meaning of the other for the same thing being right.* That begs which is the actual right view.
* Group A = It is right to steal.
Group B = It is wrong to steal.
Which is the actual case?
[a] It is a constant claim of yours which I have stated I have demonstrated what is necessary and what makes sense. My Christian perspective has what is necessary for making sense of morality; your atheistic one does not and has not been demonstrated as doing so. Just more hot air on your part.
Most mammals have the following (moral) instincts,(1) PROTECT YOURSELF(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTYThese moral instincts are universal (relative to mammals anyway) and unchanging.[a] These moral instincts predate the"discovery" of "YHWH" by Abraham.PGA2.0 428That is your assumption and presumption that comes from your worldview bias.Are you disputing that these instincts existed before Abraham?
The biblical revelation does not say that Abraham invented the biblical YHWY or morality, so why Abraham is included is a mystery.
No, I am debating that humans instincts are not what is necessary for morality. How I protect myself, my family, my property, or determine that I need to protect myself, family, or property may have a detrimental effect on those who have done nothing wrong or even on what is right and wrong. It is not based upon my feelings or perceptions but upon what is right and wrong. My instinct on right or wrong may or may not meet the moral standard.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
You have claimed to share the Yahwehs standard. Great. Now please explain not just his pronouncements about specific actions but how he has determined what is and is not moral and if you don't actually know then I'm afraid you don't actually have a standard to present at all.PGA2.0 352Morality is based on His nature.[100a] The Being that is God is pure, holy, just,compassionate, loving. These are good qualities. Since He knows all things He knows what is harmful and hurtful to us[100b], thus He commands that we do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, do not covet(that hurts us, creating all kinds of discord and inner turmoil within our life), do not commit adultery, do honour your father and mother, and honour your Maker.[100a] So you claim, but can you prove that?You could of course choose to base your standard on God's nature somehow. The result would then be your favourite standard.[100b] Harmfull and hurtfull are tied to well(/ill)-being. Are you saying that goodness and God's nature are tied to well-being?
[100a] You can't prove things to someone who is not open to the evidence. It is like talking to a wall. There is always one more "what if..."
I keep telling you the evidence or proof is reasonable. You keep denying there is evidence. How can I have a conversation with someone who does not want to hear it or look at the evidence? You say the Bible is not evidence of God, yet it claims to be a self-revelation of God. Thus, what it contains is either reasonable to believe, or it is not. So, how reasonable is this evidence, these written records, in accordance with what we can know (via history, archaeology, and internal evidence/consistency aligned with external evidence)? What is more reasonable to believe about our existence, our morality, our universe? Two of these are philosophical questions that should be weighed on logic and reason. The third, the universe, is more apt in applying physical evidence in its proof. The Bible speaks of creation by God, a Saviour, a covenant with a people (Israel), the destruction of that covenant, and the making of a better one. It speaks of a judgment in which a city and temple will be destroyed and a particulate people judged according to a specific timeframe. How reasonable are these things to believe as happening? How reasonable is it to believe these prophecies were written before the fact, the event, not after? I claim more reasonable than not believing them or believing the contrary. The prophesied Messiah comes before the destruction of the temple and city and sets in place a new covenant. That is most reasonable to believe.
You are a master of smoke screens. You seldom reveal your own perspective or how these moral things can make sense from your atheistic perspective. Why should I believe what you say unless you can justify your belief??? This has been one-sided to date, IMO. How many times have I asked you to justify morality from your perspective to no avail? On the other hand, I have given you a more reasonable perspective with common sense and logic.
PGA2.0 352If God allowed His people to be destroyed by these hostile groups or be grossly influenced it would nullify the prophecies about the Messiah's lineage. Thus, God had the greater good in mind, the salvation of a vast number of people in the long run.No doubt God has his personal greater good in mind, [a] as he is a narcissist. [b] However, what evidence can you present that he had the salvation of a vast number of people in mind and that [c] the promotion of military conquest and the oppression of natives contributed to that?
[a] Again, just saying so does not make it so. The Bible repeatedly states that God is looking out for the good of us by requiring what is right, and just since He is loving.
Love does not seek its own benefit; thus, how can it be narcissistic?
[b] Again, what evidence will you accept? You do not accept the Bible as His word; you do not accept the proofs within its pages. You do not accept the logic of/for God as a necessary being but assert yourself as one in your pronouncements of declarative and imperative statements. You keep begging that I should believe you. Why?
[c] About what? You try to detach the context from your statements all the time when it comes to biblical things. What specifically are you referring to? IMO, you fail to inquire why God would do such things to judge such people or save others. There are sufficient reasons.
PGA2.0 371 to secularmerlinLet me get this straight, in 99% of cases sex is consensual.[*] Both parties agree to it recognizing that it could produce another human being and that anew human being is the result of a woman consenting to have sex. Now you are telling me that if she gets pregnant she should take no responsibility for it if she does not want to. She knows if she gets pregnant another human being will be sharing her body for a period of time - roughly nine months[*] Maybe. I don't know the figures, but what matters is what fraction of pregancies come from consensual sex, which is probably lower. Moreover, that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy is disputable.
[*] Maybe? These stats are gathered from US polls, which I noted in previous debates and posts. I am not doing the work again of listing them.
When sex is engaged in, there is often a chance that pregnancy will result, that a condom will fail and that fertilization will occur. To sluff off the idea that this can happen is again to find excuses if it does happen..."I did not know I could/would get pregnant."
Would you use the same excuse if you ran a red light and hit a pedestrian? "I did not know this could/would happen by running the red." It is your responsibility to know the consequences of doing the act, either sexual or disobeying traffic laws.
In addition, [a] on what grounds would the mother have responsibility, beside opinions? [b] Furthermore, what about the responsibility of the father? Usually, in the case of abortion, he did nothing for the foetus, yet receives no blame.
[a] Because the woman knew that having sex could result in a pregnancy ( as did the father), however small that might be. Not only this, do we not have a moral responsibility to protect innocent human beings? If not, what is stopping someone from killing you even when you have not committed a crime or done anything wrong? Is it not self-evidentiary that it is wrong? We are speaking of killing an innocent human being here. Do you not recognize that? You continually gloss over that fact. Why do you do this?
[b] He has a responsibility too. It takes both the sperm and egg to create a new life. Thus, both males and females play a part in reproduction. When a new life is created, they both have a fundamental obligation to protect it, if you think an innocent life is worth protecting? Do you? Can you live with it not being the case?
secularmerlin 326I'm not sure agree on what exactly justice is but let's pretend for a moment that that isn't an issue and that this sounds nice in theory.PGA2.0 382 First of all, let me give you an idea of what it is in a nutshell. Justice is equal treatment under the law. It is not being particular depending on whether a person is rich or influential. It applies the letter of the law equally regardless of persons.Aha. We have an objective definition for justice. [a] So far you seemed to use justice as if it were whatever is consistent with with God's personal standard of justice. [b] I presume God is exempted from equal treatment and deserves better treatment. That is self-serving favouritism.
[a] What the hell are you talking about? Where did I mention God in my statement? Is it not self-evident to you that if one innocent person is fined for breaking a law that he did not break and another guilty person is let off for breaking the same law that justice has not been served? IMO, you continually manipulate words and thoughts to serve yourself and your corrupt and illogical ideas.
[b] First, you assume that moral rules are above God, not part of His nature. Second, you assume that moral laws apply to Him. Greg Koukle raises some good points about the Ten Commandments and morality. They apply to human beings, but how can they apply to God?
How can stealing apply to God? Since God owns all things and created all things, how can He steal? He is just taking what already belongs to Him. How can that be considered stealing?
As a human being, do you have a right to do with what you own as you want to do (on a human level)? Can you break the computer you own because you are frustrated with it? Can you give it away if you want to do so, as an adult? If so, how can you deny God the same right as the owner of all things?
How can murder apply to Him? He has revealed that He will not take innocent life without restoring it to a better place, so He does not murder. You do not have the ability to restore a life taken to a better place. Since God created life (is the giver and taker of life), how can He be guilty of murder? He determines how life should be lived by what is just. Murder is the unwarranted and malicious taking of innocent life. Punishing a person for murder by taking that life too is not the same thing as murder. It is applying equal justice - life for life, where one was wrongfully taken. You do not own that other life, but God does. He is the originator of it and decides how long it will live. Murder is wrong on the human level from a Christian perspective because you take something that belongs to God. He granted that life in the first place, not you. It is not your right to take it except in self-defence or to protect others from harm, not out of malicious intent, jealousy, and selfishness.
In the stealing and ownership example, are you not being hypocritical, applying one standard to yourself and another to God? And as if it should apply to Him. How can you speak back to Him as if He is unjust? How do you determine this by your subjectiveness? What is justice to you? You required I define it. I defined my terms, yet you should also define yours, so we know we are speaking about the same thing. You always want to critique my view but seldom give justification for your own.
What makes you think God is accountable to you? He is under no obligation to answer you (per the Bible) but has graciously decided to anyway through the biblical revelation.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
There appears to be another inconsistency in your worldview. You claim that skeptic's views are merely preferences because not based on some ultimate, absolute, fixed standard and yet you keep asking skeptics for their views, as if their preferences matter. [a] What relevance do their preferences have?
No, what I do is invite them to prove me wrong, that your preference does matter in determining what is moral.
[a] The relevance is that if they have the means (i.e., force is what you are speaking of, not whether something is actually good which you seem to have no clue of), they get to push their preference on others without sufficient reason to justify it other than force or charisma. Thus, if they have the means, they can force their unjust view on others like Hitler did with Nazi Germany through various methods such as indoctrination of the young through education. They can push through unjust laws that dehumanize and discriminate against those who are thought of as less favoured (the Jew, the deformed, the mentally challenged, the gypsy, the political opposition). Such people blur the meaning of morality, of right and wrong, because they do not describe and identify things as they are but how they feel about things and what they want things to be, as conforming to their subjective feelings. The reality, to them, is lost and becomes a power grab and a manipulative mind game. They can make something that is bad (from an objective standpoint, like murder) a civil right of the elite or favoured "race" by marginalizing and controlling the unfavoured groups of that society and eliminating them. The same thing (losing the reality of right and wrong) is happening in the USA via the Democrat party, IMO. I believe that the Dems control the thought patterns of the masses through all kinds of propaganda techniques. These people who think in relative, subjective, "feeling" terms are dangerous to a free society, as has been proven true with socialist and communist governance systems.
No. First take the guess work out of your argument. Stop telling me what you think is immoral and tell me why it is immoral. I've given you my standard and we can both discuss it because we both agree that there are humans and that the things we do effect their welfare.PGA2.0 369I have told you many times. You do not listen. It is immoral because if offends the righteousness of God. It is wrong if there is an objective standard that we can measure values against that is fix and best. If not, nothing ultimately matters and morality becomes nothing more than subjective individual or group preference. Which way do you want to live?You believe that reality reasons like this : “PGA2.0 would dislike it if there is no objective standard that people can measure values against that is fixed and best. He does have a point. Morality would be nothing more than a preference. One wouldn't be able to tell what is really good. That would be terrible. Hence, to please PGA2.0, I make sure that there is such astandard.”[a] Skeptics on the other hand, know that reality doesn't work that way. [b] They know that reality does not cater to their desires. Hence, [c] which way skeptics want to live is irrelevant to the existence of an objective standard, [d] unless they can create such a standard themselves.
The whole idea of the thread was to show that atheism cannot make sense of morality. Thus it is not as reasonable as Christianity (the only form of theism I defend because I believe it is the most reasonable form of theism with justifiable evidence) as a system of thought.
"Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?"
[a] Again, you use spiked language to influence others. You are begging how you know the real (reality) by personal preference since you never state the evidence. How does an opinion make something real unless it supplies justifiable evidence that its thought system conforms to the real through argumentation?
[b] Skeptics know reality does not cater to their preference because they have nothing real or concrete to measure their opinions against other than other subjective, shifting opinions. That begs the question of why I should believe you? There is no reason that your opinion is any BETTER than any other (no better than Hitler or Kim Jong-un) unless you can supply an objective source for your opinion, an unchanging measure. That means giving evidence that meets the standard of objectivity. You can't. You offer hot air that you want to meld and mould other opinions in conformity to your nonsense.
[c] Again, "which way skeptics want to live" is very relevant to those who are being subverted and dehumanized and discriminated against by such skeptics and just saying so does not make it so. Your thinking on this topic is reminiscent of T.S. Elliot's first stanza of The Hollow Men, IMO. You base morality once again on FEELING ("a skeptic wants").
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
[d] An objective standard is one independent of subjectivity. It conforms to what is the actual case, to reality, not whatever you want to make the case to be. The laws of nature, gravity, thermodynamics, of relativity, are actual principles. They are proven valid. The laws of logic are actual principles that exist. The laws of logic are self-evident. They are necessary to make sense of anything. You can't deny these laws without using them. To deny them does not make them any less real. They still operate whether you realize them or not. The laws of morality operate in the same manner. There is such a thing as the good, the right, for any given actions, or else goodness is meaningless. It can mean anything because it has no fixed address.
Again, your worldview is absolutely pathetic, IMO, of making sense of morality. I keep inviting you to try from an atheistic perspective. Go ahead. This is the objective of this thread. Show me you have what is necessary.
Created:
79 posts behind. Help. This is going to take a while.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You say one thing but have no footing to prove it true. Why SHOULD I believe what you have to say?You say one thing but have no footing to prove it true. Why SHOULD I believe what you have to say?
I can give you reasonable proofs, but I have learned that a person cannot be convinced against their will. I am willing to do so too, but I have found it a waste of time to date. People will always make up another "what-if" to infinity unless they come to the end of their rope. It is in times of trouble that many people come to know God. Of course, many others blame God in times of trouble instead of relying on Him.
If you wanted proof, I am willing to go into the prophetic argument as to its reasonableness. Are you willing to go there? If not, I will not bother. If so, I want a commitment to staying the course, and I want feedback from you. When I ask a question, I would expect an answer.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Is being free your moral preference?Individual freedom is impossible without the individual ability to freely generate their own food, clothing and shelter.
That is a big assumption; providing physical necessities makes you free. If your mind is not free, neither are you. Whatever controls you keeps you unfree.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
3RU7AL 328The same way you do. Moral instinct. Moral intuition.PGA2.0 352It is not moral instinct that I prove what is right and wrong. It is by the revelation of Another, even though we are created in His image and likeness, thus we too are moral beings. The thing is, without His revelation sin prevents us from doing what is right.[98] We want todo what feels pleasant to us or what we desire rather than what isgood.[99] And since the Fall, we are marred with sin. Thus, we thinkapart from God, making up our own moral values that are way too oftencontrary to His standard.[98] [a] Right according to God's personal morality (GM), you mean. So what? [b] Why should people who don't believe in God and who dislike GM, want to do what is right according to GM? [c] That sin is preventing me from doing that, doesn't bother me.
[a] So what? He knows all things; you do not.
[b] They don't usually. They want to do the opposite, like giving a licence to kill the most innocent human beings (the unborn). If they truly want to find out what is the right thing to do, it requires an omniscient, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal God revealing it to them.
But sometimes, people get tired of all of humanity's inhumanity and look for the answer and find God in/as that answer.
[c] You are not telling me anything I don't know.
[99] Indeed. [a] Biological evolution tends to generate animals that [b] couldn't care less about GM.
[a] That is your worldview, biological macro-evolution, not mine. I believe human beings were created differently from the animals to their own kind. You think that we have a common ancestor, the one-celled organism, whereas I believe that our common ancestor is God. You believe the "evolutionary chain" shows animals adapting and changing from that one common ancestor. I believe we are similar and yield similar traits because we share the same environment and food sources. Thus, we must share common traits.
[b] Except for humanity. Most societies throughout history have looked to God or gods.
So what if the source is not mighty enough [a] to your taste? I am sure God, were he to exist, [b] could smite all his competitors, but [c] not everyone likes might makes right morality.
[a] You mean your "tastes." We are not even there yet until you understand that your worldview is insufficient and unreasonable.
[b] Yes, He could immediately. Instead, He has given us a lifetime, and when we die, we will come into His presence and be accountable. Usually, He lets our sins reach their maximum before He holds us accountable, but all the while, we face trials in this life that turn us to or against Him. The trails can come by our fellow human beings doing wrong that affect us, or they can come by a natural disaster in which judgment comes in some form, even up to the taking of our lives.
[c] The only might that is right is the might that knows right. You have not demonstrated that you know what is right. It can change according to who holds the idea in your worldview. After all this time, you still have avoided proving what you believe as an atheist is more reasonable than what I believe as a Christian.
PGA2.0 352 to 3RU7AL about the the 10 niyamasWhy is this guru sufficient?Since when does a guru need to be sufficient?
Only if you want to be certain of the truth or have what is necessary for certainty. Does 3BRU7AL have a god that is necessary for certainty? How does his god compare to the Christian God? How has his god revealed himself/herself/itself, and what proofs has it given us? Again, his god is dismal in comparison to the evidence for the Christian God.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
3RU7AL 306You validate the moral codec of "YHWH"by using YOUR moral intuition.PGA2.0 335I validate them by pointing to a standard beyond myself that is necessary because it is fixed and unchanging. [92] Logically, that is what is necessary because the law of identity (A=A) falls to pieces if every subjective being has a different view on what is right and good.[93] So, it is self-evident for anyone who thinks about what is necessary. A subjective standard does not meet what is necessary.[94][92] That doesn't look like what you are doing. [a] You seem to be of the opinion that slavery is wrong, but the Bible appears to condone slavery. [b] So you torture the Bible to make it say what you want. With success. Now the Bible only rarely condones slavery and the slavery it does condone isn't that bad. *sigh of relief*Moreover, you have so far been unable to demonstrate that being fixed and unchanging are necessary attributes for a standard.
[a] Chattel slavery is wrong. It was the standard of many ANE cultures but not Israel. God strictly forbade mistreatment of others except in the case of wrongdoing for the purpose of punishment and to teach a lesson.
[b] I use reason to interpret it and understand that God has a specific meaning He wants the reader to understand - His meaning. If God is just and good, and the Bible states Him as being so, we need to understand what exactly took place or was meant to take place according to the Mosaic law. I have gone through it in some depth, and it was largely ignored or talked over, although I will give some credit to SkepticalOne and Stephen for addressing the subject in depth.
Remember who the OT addressed. It was a people (Israel) living in hostile surroundings with savage practices in these other nations. The slavery or servitude the Bible condones or permits is not the same as these other nations. The biblical servitude is designed to look after and protect those employed. I have likened it to an employer/employee relationship in many ways for you, as an employee subject yourself to the conditions of those who employ you.
[93] No, it does not. You have admitted yourself in post 301 a word's meaning depends on context. Hence one person may mean something different with the same word. So, if one person is saying “Trees are marpalent.” and the other is saying “Trees are not marpelent.”, then that could mean:a) They are contradicting each other. In the real world it happens that people contradict each other. That is why that also happens in the worldview of skeptics, because, unlike you, skeptics base their worldview on the real world.
It is common sense and not logically consistent to believe two opposite things regarding the same thing can both be true about it simultaneously and in the same relationship. If you want to deny logic's laws, I think we have gone as far as we can because you are being irrational. A thing cannot be what it is and what it is not at the same time.
b) [a] Both persons do not mean the same thing with 'marpalent'. Hence, they would not be contradicting each other. You gave as example in post 301 how green can have more than one meaning. In our debate on debate.org, you said a few times that things can't be both right and wrong in the same sense, because you realize they could be [b] right and wrong in a different sense. But then you also realized that guarding term was underming your argument, so you stopped using it and assumed that the same word always means the same thing, thereby leaving reality and entering your fictional worldview, where there is room for God.
[a] I don't even know what the word means if there is such a word, but if there are several meanings, then the same meaning must be used in both cases to be understood or else there is no equivalency. If I say, "The grass is green," it does not mean the same thing as saying, "I am green with envy." One use of the word green speaks of the literal grass's colour, the other speaks of jealousy/covetousness/desire. In the second instance, I am not saying I am literally green.
[b] I'm not sure of your specific reference since you once again gave no actual context or link.
If the context is speaking of one thing, you can't switch that context to another thing. When you speak of the moral good, you can't switch that to what you like and call that morally good. The two are used to express different things; one an ought, the other a desire or like. There is equivocation going on when that happens.
[94] A subjective standard is not supposed to meet what is necessary. My bycicle doesn't meet what is necessary, yet that doesn't make my bycicle wrong and it would be stupid to discard my bicycle because of that.
Again, there is a disjunction happening here. You are again trying to equate riding your bicycle with moral good. Not only this, but you are equating a thing as necessary as opposed to a person/persons. Morals come from sentient beings. They do not come from bicycles. Bicycles are not necessary for morals; beings are.
3RU7AL 306And then you credit "YHWH"for gifting you the moral intuition you use to validate "the ten commandments".PGA2.0 335An objective standard is self-evident for morality. Without one how do you justify your OPINION is BETTER than that of anyone else?[95] Are you going to force your beliefs on others? How does that make it "better."[95] [a]You seem to be assuming that one needs to be able to justify one's opinion to be better than someone else's. However, if I understand correctly, [b] you yourself are unable to justify your opinion to be better than someone else's. You certainly haven't done so.[c] Notice again how you omitted to provide a definition or reference standard for “better”. You wouldn't want people to know what exactly you mean with “better”, would you?
[a] Oh, boy... Better is a comparative term. It implies it is being compared to something else. If there is no ideal, then what are you comparing it against? Something that constantly changes? How do you KNOw it is better in such a fleeting standard? Your mark keeps shifting.
[b] Again, I have what is necessary for there to be a "better." Your worldview does not, or at least...you have not been able to demonstrate it does. I have what is necessary to justify morality; you do not. Thus, once again, my Christian system of thought is more reasonable to believe than yours.
[c] I have pointed to the standard many times - the biblical God, as I did in the next paragraph, it appears. You continue to ignore it and blow smoke. I can give you many avenues of reasonable proof of His existence. Choosing not to believe them is your choice.
PGA2.0 335Furthermore, since [a] the Bible makes the point that we, as humans, are created in the image and likeness of God, we would have a consciousness that retains some of His goodness [96] (even while denying Him), but the problem is that the moral standard is garbled by the Fall and our subjectiveness without Godbecause we have no clear ideal we can mirror right and wrong against, just a dim reflection.[97] So, even to an extent, Hammurabi can reflect some of the standards of God without that close personal relationship. We see that Caan knew that killing (murdering) his brother was wrong. He hid from God just as Adam did when he took the fruit of the tree of knowledge.[96] Is that hypothesis supported by evidence?
[a] Yes, evidence you continue to pretend does not exist. The Bible is evidence. It makes claims that are backed in several ways.
[b] You continually speak of good and bad, right and wrong as a reasoning being that the Bible says is made in His image and likeness.
You like to ask how questions. Answer one yourself. How did God inscribe morality in our hearts?
By creating us as intelligent beings who are capable of finding MEANING and purpose. The problem is that we mar the meaning and purpose when we do not rightfully understand where it comes from or that there are objective truths regarding meaning/morality/right/wrong.
[97] [a] So God messed up. Did he mess up on purpose or out of clumsyness?
[a] Again, a false assumption from a biblical perspective. God did not mess up; humanity did. That is a clear message revealed in its writings. Even those who are mentally challenged can understand it.
[b] He did not mess up, yet He allowed us to by giving Adam a free will to choose. Even though you have a will to choose, you will not choose God without His mercy and grace. Thus, in a sense, your will is not free but in bondage to whatever controls it.
God knows all things. Thus, He has an objective knowledge of all things or, if you like, a real, true knowledge. You do not unless you think His thoughts after Him. I have been trying to demonstrate the inadequate, small-mindedness of our limited reasoning without God, and you are doing an outstanding job of backing me up!
Created: