Beginning Of The Universe Evidence Of God's Existence

[Asimov]

Even with God objective morals don't exist.

 

How so?

 

Objectivity requires morals to be independent of minds, not the result of thought. God dictating morals to people is not objective because God is a mind.

[Neon Genesis]

Oh, but we have eyewitness accounts of people experiencing miraculous events, including the healing of the lame, the raising of the dead, turning water into wine, etc. You see the problem with your viewpoint is that all of science is built upon the principle of causality.

If you're referring toi the bible, then you can't use the bible to prove the claims of the bible is true. That's called circular logic and is intellecutally dishonest and doesn't prove anything. That's like using the Quran to prove the claims of Islam are true or using the Book Of Shadows to prove Wicca is real.

 

 

Either answer the philosophical problems with your model with valid logical counter-arguments; and the scientific problems with scientific evidence and data, or you will have to admit that you believe your theory based upon your atheistic presuppositions and faith in them.

Atheism is not a faith. Atheism is the lack of beliefs in gods. Saying that atheism is the same thing as a faith is like saying not having something is the same thing as having something or not belonging to a club is the same thing as belonging to a club. It's utterly ridiculous and makes no sense and you are trying to redefine the English language to make speaking meaningless.

 

I should have qualified my statement as I am not advocating, nor is WLC advocating Divine Command Theory as it is commonly portrayed. IOW, God does not arbitrarily command actions leaving him open to changing his mind on a whim, which is the common understanding of DCT. Craig, as do I, ties God’s commands to his eternal and immutable nature which is good, loving, and perfect. So, I was not lying, just not very precise with my response.

 

You seem to paint me and others with a negative brush pretty quickly, why not first ask for clarification before doing so?

Apparently, you've never read the bible. Quoted from 1 Samuel 15:2-3

This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.'

You say god can never command anything that is not good, loving, and perfect. Since the bible claims god gave a commandment to murder all the Amalekite children, then are you saying that the bible lied and is not inerrant or inspired? Or are you saying that god considers murdering children to be loving, good, and perfect, which contradicts your argument?

[Deva]

Sometimes I think the best solution for Christianity of your type and stripe is the Final Solution.

 

 

I have not participated in this thread but have read large portions of it. I must register my strong objection to the above outrageous statement. Unbelievable. Moderators?

[Jeff H]

What words have I twisted? I think you are twisting my words, or at least editing them. I said that there are no objective moral values without God, not morals. There is a difference. Objective moral values are based upon a standard that transcends our world. If morals are based upon us , even if that means that they somehow evolved, it means that morality is subjective (related to the subject to which they apply), not objective (not dependent upon the subject to which they apply). So, unless morals originate from an independent source outside of us, then they are subjective. I know it seems like a fine distinction, but an important one.

 

Yes, and no. Much of our morality - whether Christian or non-Christian - comes from an "independent source outside of us". We receive much socialization from our parents and our culture, including our morality. That is why we view cannibalism as disgusting, while cannibal children see it as perfectly natural. The problem is that there are two different levels of subjectivism that causes a slight equivocation on your part. You say that if we don't receive our morals from God, our morals are subjective - as in, we just think them up from in our head. They come from within us. But this isn't the case. Atheists are no more immoral than Christians, because society still provides a source of morality. Thus, on the individual level, our morality largely comes from outside us - it is objective - but on a cultural level, morality is subjective (cannibalism vs. non-cannibalism, for example). Now, in most areas, different societies have come to the same conclusions on matters - murder, rape, etc. But in some areas, they are very different. This is not our only source of morality - we also develop the ability to reason through actions as well - but in most cases, our sociocultural morality accounts for the large majority of our behaviour.

 

Now, if morals are subjective, then we are in no position to say that anything is objectively wrong. Rape, murder, child molestation, would all be personal preferences or dislikes, nothing more.

We can still say they are wrong based on an ethical standpoint. Take an ethics course and then see if you can still say this. Kant, Mill, Aristotle, and many others would certainly disagree with you. It is possible to make a well-reasoned, stable system of morality based on logic and reason. And though there are competing views and arguments, surprisingly they all would condemn actions such as rape, murder, and child molestation.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Gonna Invoke Moderator's Special Slap the Fuck Outa Next Fool to Use Nazi-ism Goodwin's Law.

 

 

We already beat the nazis with an expensive war and rebuilding. Not gonna do it all the hell over again on WBDave's dime and space.

 

Clear?

 

kevinFuckin'L

[Asimov]

Gonna Invoke Moderator's Special Slap the Fuck Outa Next Fool to Use Nazi-ism Goodwin's Law.

 

 

We already beat the nazis with an expensive war and rebuilding. Not gonna do it all the hell over again on WBDave's dime and space.

 

Clear?

 

kevinFuckin'L

 

Thanks Kevin. I would have hated for this convo to descend into retarded accusations and hate-mongering. It's been a clean and fun thread so far, let's not fuck it up.

[R. S. Martin]

Gonna Invoke Moderator's Special Slap the Fuck Outa Next Fool to Use Nazi-ism Goodwin's Law.

 

 

We already beat the nazis with an expensive war and rebuilding. Not gonna do it all the hell over again on WBDave's dime and space.

 

Clear?

 

kevinFuckin'L

 

Sorry. I removed it from my post.

[LNC]

No, I don't have to assume it's actualized, you're merely making that assertion by arbitrarily applying a "finite" point called "present".

 

Yet, you are making the assumption that infinite future time will actualize, which you cannot assume, so therefore, the best that we can say is that we are at a finite point at this time. So, you have no real case for infinite time other than by faith.

 

Craig's first premise is unsupported. Craig's second premise is invalid because he confuses an infinite number of events with an infinite number of things.

 

Actually, there is plenty of support philosophically for Craig’s first premise. Aquinas argued that an actual infinite multitude would be differentiated by numbers and that there are no infinite numbers (meaning natural numbers).

 

Regarding your second assertion, Craig has given examples as to why a beginningless series of events is a logical absurdity. Consider a couple of examples. First, each day is an effect of a prior series of concatenated causes. If time were past-eternal, then yesterday would have had the same number of causes than today. This day 100 years ago would have had the same number of causes as today. This leads to one absurdity. Second, considering the rotation of the planets around the Sun, Jupiter completes 2.5 rotations for every one that Saturn completes, yet given infinite time, they would have completed the same number of rotations. Jupiter should have completed infinitely more rotations in infinite time, yet they both have completed an infinite number of rotations, so some how they are actually even. Where was that line crossed making them even? Even though they are rotating at different rates they still maintain the same number of ultimate rotations.

 

See, you run into logical contradictions and absurdities (an infinite number of them) given infinite time.

 

The events occur consecutively, but the people exist simultaenously and the signal velocity of requesting the money is finite as well. It has no application as an analogy.

 

I think you are using word games to try to get out of the logical problem rather than addressing the logical absurdity of the illustration. Signal velocity has nothing to do with the real problem and works against your argument just as much as you think it works for you. It sets the same bounds on your proof of past-eternal time. Second, you also deny infinite regression with your second objection as you would have to argue that there can be only one infinite regression happening simultaneously. The fact that these people exist simultaneously does not get you out of the logical absurdity presented by the illustration,

 

What do you mean? It IS science. Bell's Theorem proved that there are no hidden variables that would allow for a causal relationship, this is basic quantum mechanics.

 

I think you overstate your case. Bell’s Theorem states that hidden variable interpretations are allowed, but that is far from concluding that there are no hidden variables that would allow for causal relationship.

 

Why not? You could also say that the universe is a set of things that exist, but that would not apply to all things that did exist and don't exist now. Even things that existed in the past and exist now are not the same.

 

It's more useful to state that the universe is a set of events. In order for events to occur, things need to exist, so it's merely pedantry on your part.

 

How is that pertinent? Even you yourself said “Craig's second premise is invalid because he confuses an infinite number of events with an infinite number of things. “Craig's second premise is invalid because he confuses an infinite number of events with an infinite number of things.” Are you now saying that events and things are the same? You seem to be arguing both sides of the case here.

 

Max Tegmarks Infinite Sea has dealth with these issues.

 

In spite of its old age, the Second Law of Thermodynamics “is alive and kicking,” says

Max Tegmark, check it out for yourself.

[LNC]

Objectivity requires morals to be independent of minds, not the result of thought. God dictating morals to people is not objective because God is a mind.

 

According the Judeo-Christianity morals are based upon the nature of God which is immutable. By your definition moral values would be subjective to the individual and therefore, ultimately meaningless. You would have no basis upon which to say anything meaningful about anyone else’s moral views.

[LNC]

If you're referring toi the bible, then you can't use the bible to prove the claims of the bible is true. That's called circular logic and is intellecutally dishonest and doesn't prove anything. That's like using the Quran to prove the claims of Islam are true or using the Book Of Shadows to prove Wicca is real.

 

I never said anything about using the Bible to prove that the claims of the Bible are true. I am speaking about the Bible as a historical record, which even liberal historians will treat as such. So, you have built a straw man argument.

 

Atheism is not a faith. Atheism is the lack of beliefs in gods. Saying that atheism is the same thing as a faith is like saying not having something is the same thing as having something or not belonging to a club is the same thing as belonging to a club. It's utterly ridiculous and makes no sense and you are trying to redefine the English language to make speaking meaningless.

 

Your statement is a late definition that has been used by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others; however, it is not the historical definition as listed in philosophical encyclopedias and other writings. However, even by your definition, you are still in a faith position in ascribing to morality as if they were meaningful, when by an atheistic worldview, they cannot ultimately be. You are also in a faith position logically, scientifically, and otherwise.

 

Apparently, you've never read the bible. Quoted from 1 Samuel 15:2-3

 

This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.'

 

You say god can never command anything that is not good, loving, and perfect. Since the bible claims god gave a commandment to murder all the Amalekite children, then are you saying that the bible lied and is not inerrant or inspired? Or are you saying that god considers murdering children to be loving, good, and perfect, which contradicts your argument?

 

I have read the Bible through the last 3-4 years in a row. How about you? Have you read it from cover to cover even once? Have you studied if formally?

 

I am not saying that this is an easy story to understand but can you give me the context of the Amalekites and why God sought to punish them? Can you tell me why God wasn’t justified in punishing them? Unless you can adequately answer those questions you have no idea as to whether God was acting in a good, loving, and perfect manner.

 

Please also define murder as you have applied it to God. Also, are you arguing for objective moral values or subjective moral values? Because, it sounds like you are taking my side in this debate by arguing that they are objective, otherwise, why would you be concerned about what the Bible records about what God did or didn’t do?

[LNC]

Yes, and no. Much of our morality - whether Christian or non-Christian - comes from an "independent source outside of us". We receive much socialization from our parents and our culture, including our morality. That is why we view cannibalism as disgusting, while cannibal children see it as perfectly natural. The problem is that there are two different levels of subjectivism that causes a slight equivocation on your part. You say that if we don't receive our morals from God, our morals are subjective - as in, we just think them up from in our head. They come from within us. But this isn't the case. Atheists are no more immoral than Christians, because society still provides a source of morality. Thus, on the individual level, our morality largely comes from outside us - it is objective - but on a cultural level, morality is subjective (cannibalism vs. non-cannibalism, for example). Now, in most areas, different societies have come to the same conclusions on matters - murder, rape, etc. But in some areas, they are very different. This is not our only source of morality - we also develop the ability to reason through actions as well - but in most cases, our sociocultural morality accounts for the large majority of our behaviour.

 

Arguing that socialization gives us objective moral values is nonsensical. You argue against yourself with your example of cannibalization. You also confuse or conflate the epistemology of morality with the ontology of morality. I am not talking about how we receive morals or how we know morals, I am talking about whether morals are ultimately objective in nature or subjective. If morals do not originate from an objective source, they by default are subjective, no matter what we think or from where we think that they come.

 

I never commented about whether you are, were, or could be moral. I think that you could live a moral life because God has given every person a conscience.

 

So, no you have not established that morals can be objective apart from God, but rather give example of the exact opposite. Even if every person agreed that something is right or wrong does not make it ultimately objective. That is an appeal to popularity.

 

We can still say they are wrong based on an ethical standpoint. Take an ethics course and then see if you can still say this. Kant, Mill, Aristotle, and many others would certainly disagree with you. It is possible to make a well-reasoned, stable system of morality based on logic and reason. And though there are competing views and arguments, surprisingly they all would condemn actions such as rape, murder, and child molestation.

 

But to say that morals are ultimately subjective (which I know you don’t, but I have shown that your explanation is ultimately faulty) and then to say that a rapist, murder, or anyone else is wrong is meaningless. You are simply stating a preference (I don’t like murder) but nothing more. I don’t need to take an ethics course, I will only hear what other people’s preferences are or aren’t, but I will not learn anything meaningful. Logic can only tell us what is, not what ought to be, that needs to come from outside of us.

[Ouroboros]

LNC,

 

Your response to me was far more than we can work through in a short while, so we have to go back to the small items and discuss them; one by one, instead of all at once.

 

So how about this, let me ask you: do you have a copy of Q is for Quantum, An encyclopedia of Particle Physics, by John Gribbin, handy by chance? There are several things in there that just doesn't add up for me in the light of a cause-effect world. And since you seem to display the attitude that you know everything there is to know about Quantum Physics, I'd like you to start with explaining the results of the Delayed Choice experiment, and how you would explained it in a one-directional time/causal world. How does the Delayed Choice work in a world where time is linear and one directional? (page 102-103 in my edition) I think they actually did complete a test like this just last year. So how do you explain it?

[Neon Genesis]

I never said anything about using the Bible to prove that the claims of the Bible are true. I am speaking about the Bible as a historical record, which even liberal historians will treat as such. So, you have built a straw man argument.

This is an illogical statement. You say that you aren't using the bible to prove the claims of the bible but then you turn around and claim the bible is a historical record. If you're claiming the bible is history, then you're claiming the bible is true. You can't have it both ways. And so what about liberal historians? There's more evidence of the existence of the existence of Muhammad than there is for Jesus yet I don't see you using the Quran as a historical record that proves Allah.

 

Your statement is a late definition that has been used by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others; however, it is not the historical definition as listed in philosophical encyclopedias and other writings. However, even by your definition, you are still in a faith position in ascribing to morality as if they were meaningful, when by an atheistic worldview, they cannot ultimately be. You are also in a faith position logically, scientifically, and otherwise.

I love how you make these baseless claims about the definition of the word atheist but you don't back up any of your claims with actual evidence. On the other hand, if we actually take a look at history, anyone can see that the opposite of your claims is in fact true: http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofat...reethinkers.htm And if there's such a thing as an atheistic worldview, what is that worldview? Is it the skeptical atheist "worldview"? Is it the Raelian atheist "worldview"? Is it the LaVeyan Satanists "worldview"? Is it the Buddhist atheist "worldview"? Why is it that Christians always claim that atheists have a "worldview" but they can never tell us what that "worldview" is? Could it be because there is no atheist worldview because atheism is not a worldview or faith? No, it couldn't be, it has to be part of some godless liberal conspiracy plot to cover up the truth! That must be it. Suddenly it all makes sense now (note the sarcasm).

 

 

 

I have read the Bible through the last 3-4 years in a row. How about you? Have you read it from cover to cover even once? Have you studied if formally?

 

I am not saying that this is an easy story to understand but can you give me the context of the Amalekites and why God sought to punish them? Can you tell me why God wasn’t justified in punishing them? Unless you can adequately answer those questions you have no idea as to whether God was acting in a good, loving, and perfect manner.

 

Please also define murder as you have applied it to God. Also, are you arguing for objective moral values or subjective moral values? Because, it sounds like you are taking my side in this debate by arguing that they are objective, otherwise, why would you be concerned about what the Bible records about what God did or didn’t do?

I am in presently in the process of reading the entirely bible and am so far up to 2 Kings but if reading the bible is supposed to somehow convince me to believe in god, it hasn't impressed me yet. And if the bible was the perfect and inspired word of god, why should you have to study it formally to be convinced it's true? Surely a perfect god would have been able to make a book that's so impressive it can convince people to believe in it just from reading it without having to go through a study of mental gymnastics to make it even remotely sensible? As they say, do you need to be a fairyologist in order to disbelieve in fairies? As for my definition of murder, I go by this definition "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)." As for context of god's punishment, apparently it was for revenge Verse 2 says

"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek (B)for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt.

Regardless of the reason why, why is it moral for god to punish innocent babies who didn't do anything to hurt anyone? If god only wanted to punish the Amalekites for revenge, why didn't he just punish the adults who actually set themselves against him? God could have just as easily killed the Amaelikite adults, save the babies and convert them to Judaism to be saved yet he didn't. Instead he ordered Saul to slaughter innocent babies who didn't do anything to god at all. And if god was going to slaughter the babies, why did god bother to let them be born in the first place since god is supposedly all-knowing and knew ahead of time that he would have done this? Does this mean god created these babies for the sole purpose of murdering them? Can you tell me how killing babies is justified? Also, you should read up on moral consequentalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism "Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence."

[Jeff H]

Arguing that socialization gives us objective moral values is nonsensical. You argue against yourself with your example of cannibalization. You also confuse or conflate the epistemology of morality with the ontology of morality. I am not talking about how we receive morals or how we know morals, I am talking about whether morals are ultimately objective in nature or subjective. If morals do not originate from an objective source, they by default are subjective, no matter what we think or from where we think that they come.

Then I would ask you to define "objective" because I was merely using your previous definition:

 

Again, instead of the ad hominem attack, why don’t you just explain how I am wrong? Tell me how having a subjective view of morals while at the same time calling someone else immoral is being consistent. Either morals are subjective to a person or they are objective based upon someone or something outside of ourselves and we are subject to them. It can’t be both according to the logical law of excluded middle.

If objectivity is defined as being a "source outside ourselves", then societal constructs are certainly outside us on an individual level. If you are talking about "us" as a culture or humanity at large, then you fail to provide any justified proof that our morals indeed come from God. Do you not believe that our parents teach us right and wrong? If not, then you stand against much of modern psychology on the matter.

 

I never commented about whether you are, were, or could be moral. I think that you could live a moral life because God has given every person a conscience.

I never claimed you did. I was speaking about the origins of morality, just as you were. Don't try to confuse the issue. As for whether God has given us a conscience - if this is the case, then is this not a source "inside us", and therefore by your definition subjective? When I face a moral issue, my conscience gives me vague feelings and subtle clues, and I must interpret them based on my reason. Thus, by your definition, the morality based on one's conscience must be subjective. I'd disagree, but only because I don't like your definition to begin with.

 

So, no you have not established that morals can be objective apart from God, but rather give example of the exact opposite. Even if every person agreed that something is right or wrong does not make it ultimately objective. That is an appeal to popularity.

I made no such appeal. I'm not arguing for some sort of odd objective truth, like stone tablets descending from the sky with glowing light, displayed for all to see and know what right and wrong is. That might make this whole debate a whole lot easier, but we don't have that, now, do we? I'm arguing your definition of the words "subjective" and "objective", and I'd like a clearer definition from you for those two words.

 

But to say that morals are ultimately subjective (which I know you don’t, but I have shown that your explanation is ultimately faulty) and then to say that a rapist, murder, or anyone else is wrong is meaningless. You are simply stating a preference (I don’t like murder) but nothing more. I don’t need to take an ethics course, I will only hear what other people’s preferences are or aren’t, but I will not learn anything meaningful. Logic can only tell us what is, not what ought to be, that needs to come from outside of us.

Perhaps in the grand, cosmic scheme of things, our morality is simply stating preferences. Perhaps you're absolutely right. But show me why that is a contradiction with reality. What if our morals are really "subjective" as you say they are? How do you go about proving that they are not? Or is your argument more of the nature, "I think that objective morals exist. And if they don't, they should exist." Of course, this would be circular logic, since you are applying a "should" statement to a system of "shoulds" (morals). But you wouldn't do something like that. So show me how morals are, in fact, objective. Start with cannibalism and slavery.

[Neon Genesis]

Arguing that socialization gives us objective moral values is nonsensical. You argue against yourself with your example of cannibalization. You also confuse or conflate the epistemology of morality with the ontology of morality. I am not talking about how we receive morals or how we know morals, I am talking about whether morals are ultimately objective in nature or subjective. If morals do not originate from an objective source, they by default are subjective, no matter what we think or from where we think that they come.

Ok, question, since god's morals do not come from an outside source, does that mean god's morals are therefore subjective and god believes in moral relativity rather than moral absolutes? And since you believe in god and according to your logic, god's morals must also be subjective, then shouldn't you also believe morals are subjective? And if we can't be moral unless our morals come from an outside source, then since god doesn't get his morals from an outside source, does that mean you've just confessed that your god is immoral?

[LNC]

LNC,

 

Your response to me was far more than we can work through in a short while, so we have to go back to the small items and discuss them; one by one, instead of all at once.

 

So how about this, let me ask you: do you have a copy of Q is for Quantum, An encyclopedia of Particle Physics, by John Gribbin, handy by chance? There are several things in there that just doesn't add up for me in the light of a cause-effect world. And since you seem to display the attitude that you know everything there is to know about Quantum Physics, I'd like you to start with explaining the results of the Delayed Choice experiment, and how you would explained it in a one-directional time/causal world. How does the Delayed Choice work in a world where time is linear and one directional? (page 102-103 in my edition) I think they actually did complete a test like this just last year. So how do you explain it?

 

I am familiar with Wheeler's thought experiment. It really delves more into the world of philosophy than it does physics (not that physics isn't the foundation of his discussion) as it is dealing with the concepts of time and causality. Let me know how comfortable you are in getting into these two philosophical areas of discussion (models of time and principle of causation) before we launch into it. Overall, it is an interesting thought experiment; however, it does have some subtle flaws embedded within. So, let me know.

[LNC]

This is an illogical statement. You say that you aren't using the bible to prove the claims of the bible but then you turn around and claim the bible is a historical record. If you're claiming the bible is history, then you're claiming the bible is true. You can't have it both ways. And so what about liberal historians? There's more evidence of the existence of the existence of Muhammad than there is for Jesus yet I don't see you using the Quran as a historical record that proves Allah.

 

Your response is a common logical error. You see, I am not trying to prove the Bible by using the Bible, I am simply taking the historical record at face value. Now, if you want to attempt to impeach the witnesses who recorded the events, you are welcome to try to do so and we can have that discussion. However, my use of the Bible is not to prove its validity, that is a separate discussion. However, you should note, as I said earlier, the authenticity of the parts of the Bible that I use as evidence are not disputed among even the liberal scholars.

 

I love how you make these baseless claims about the definition of the word atheist but you don't back up any of your claims with actual evidence. On the other hand, if we actually take a look at history, anyone can see that the opposite of your claims is in fact true: http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofat...reethinkers.htm And if there's such a thing as an atheistic worldview, what is that worldview? Is it the skeptical atheist "worldview"? Is it the Raelian atheist "worldview"? Is it the LaVeyan Satanists "worldview"? Is it the Buddhist atheist "worldview"? Why is it that Christians always claim that atheists have a "worldview" but they can never tell us what that "worldview" is? Could it be because there is no atheist worldview because atheism is not a worldview or faith? No, it couldn't be, it has to be part of some godless liberal conspiracy plot to cover up the truth! That must be it. Suddenly it all makes sense now (note the sarcasm).

 

Let's try a more credible source than "About.com"; how about the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which states

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism. The tribal gods of the early inhabitants of Palestine are of little or no philosophical interest. They were essentially finite beings, and the god of one tribe or collection of tribes was regarded as good in that it enabled victory in war against tribes with less powerful gods. Similarly the Greek and Roman gods were more like mythical heroes and heroines than like the omnipotent, omniscient and good God postulated in mediaeval and modern philosophy. As the Romans used the word, ‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion, notably the Christians, and so merely to signify disbelief in their own mythical heroes.

 

You ask what the atheist worldview is and I would simply point you to the slew of books being published by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and others. They seem quite intent about spreading their worldview, which is atheist and anti-theist. Even the Buddhist is intent on spreading their worldview, I have met enough of them to know. I don't say that it is a conspiracy as the four main figureheads of atheism are quite open about their intentions.

 

I am in presently in the process of reading the entirely bible and am so far up to 2 Kings but if reading the bible is supposed to somehow convince me to believe in god, it hasn't impressed me yet. And if the bible was the perfect and inspired word of god, why should you have to study it formally to be convinced it's true? Surely a perfect god would have been able to make a book that's so impressive it can convince people to believe in it just from reading it without having to go through a study of mental gymnastics to make it even remotely sensible? As they say, do you need to be a fairyologist in order to disbelieve in fairies? As for my definition of murder, I go by this definition "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)." As for context of god's punishment, apparently it was for revenge Verse 2 says

"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek (B)for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt.

Regardless of the reason why, why is it moral for god to punish innocent babies who didn't do anything to hurt anyone? If god only wanted to punish the Amalekites for revenge, why didn't he just punish the adults who actually set themselves against him? God could have just as easily killed the Amaelikite adults, save the babies and convert them to Judaism to be saved yet he didn't. Instead he ordered Saul to slaughter innocent babies who didn't do anything to god at all. And if god was going to slaughter the babies, why did god bother to let them be born in the first place since god is supposedly all-knowing and knew ahead of time that he would have done this? Does this mean god created these babies for the sole purpose of murdering them? Can you tell me how killing babies is justified? Also, you should read up on moral consequentalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism "Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence."

 

Great, I am glad you are reading the Bible. I never said that you had to study it formally to be convinced that it is true. I simply say that if you are going to critique a work, you should be familiar enough with it to know whether your critique is actually valid. Why do you feel it necessary for God to impress people with a book? God is not about forcing himself on his creation and I think we would resent him if he did. The Bible is about giving a historical account of the work that he has done throughout history to redeem a rebellious people back to relationship with himself. It is to show the faithfulness of God and the faithlessness of man, so that we would understand that God is extremely patient and merciful to us who have essentially told him to "Get Lost". He has every right to do to us what was done to the Amalekits, or worse, but for the most part, he is patient with us desiring that we would choose to come back into relationship with him, but never forcing the issue with us. The Bible, for the most part, is pretty easy to understand. Yes, there are parts that require a knowledge of the time, place, and people in order to understand the context, but there are plenty of resources for that as well.

 

Now, in regard to your definition of murder, I would ask whether it would be wrong to kill an innocent person if the laws allowed for it. IOW, is it the law that dictates what murder is, or is there a higher law that supersedes man’s written code, such that if by some strange act, congress passed a law saying it is lawful to kill babies up to 2 years old without any justification, would that be OK by you? Or, were you just using the legal definition as a shortcut to define your parameters?

 

Regarding the Amalekites, you call it revenge; however, under that definition you would have to categorize all criminal legal action in the world as revenge. The Amalekites knew what they were doing when they attacked the Israelites coming out of Egypt. The word about how the Israelites had come out of Egypt and had defeated the Egyptians would have gone before them and the Amalekites chose to viciously attack them. In essence, they were attacking God by attacking his people since their deeds were known to be the works of God. The Amalekites were rejecting and rebelling against God by attacking his chosen people. In any land at that time, to attack the sovereign of the nation was a capital offense and the family was always punished with the head of the family. So, that is why context is important. The Amalekites willfully and knowingly attacked the sovereign of the universe, which carried the most severe consequences.

 

You ask a good question about how killing babies is justified. Unfortunately, we don’t have a great track record on that in our country where over 1 million babies per year are sacrificed on the altar of convenience. As to why God chose to kill the babies of Amalek along with the adults, I can’t say for sure. There are a few reasons that I have heard proffered, but each is somewhat speculative since God didn’t say why. However, when I look at everything about God, the preponderance of the evidence tells me that God is loving and just, so in this case, I will have to trust him and hear his reason when I meet him.

 

Consequentialism has a huge built in flaw in that we cannot see into the future, so we don’t know what action is ultimately going to produce a good outcome. Second, it begs the question by using the term good within its definition. Morals are about defining what is good and what is bad, so to assume the definition within the definition is circular reasoning. However, the big problem is that we don’t know what actions will produce ultimate good.

[LNC]

Then I would ask you to define "objective" because I was merely using your previous definition:

 

If objectivity is defined as being a "source outside ourselves", then societal constructs are certainly outside us on an individual level. If you are talking about "us" as a culture or humanity at large, then you fail to provide any justified proof that our morals indeed come from God. Do you not believe that our parents teach us right and wrong? If not, then you stand against much of modern psychology on the matter.

 

When I say “outside of ourselves” I probably wasn’t as precise as I should have been. I mean outside of humanity. Anything that humanity would define would be subjective to humanity. So, societal constructs are just that society, which is made up of humans, constructing a moral code. But how does society do that? Society is made up of people, so does everyone get to vote? What if even one person doesn’t agree, do they get to opt out? What if the vote comes down to one person casting the deciding vote, isn’t it ultimately that person who defined morality? These are just some of the subjective problems with society or humanity defining morality.

 

I am not trying to prove at this point that morality comes from God, just that apart from God morals are subjective. The epistemological issue is a separate discussion. Let’s focus on the ontological problem first.

 

I never claimed you did. I was speaking about the origins of morality, just as you were. Don't try to confuse the issue. As for whether God has given us a conscience - if this is the case, then is this not a source "inside us", and therefore by your definition subjective? When I face a moral issue, my conscience gives me vague feelings and subtle clues, and I must interpret them based on my reason. Thus, by your definition, the morality based on one's conscience must be subjective. I'd disagree, but only because I don't like your definition to begin with.

 

However, you did say

 

Atheists are no more immoral than Christians, because society still provides a source of morality.

 

And that is what I was addressing in my response. So, I am not trying to confuse anything, rather, I am trying to focus our conversation. Again, your discussion of conscience is an epistemological discussion, not an ontological discussion, so I won’t get into that now, I simply used it as a reason that people act morally even when they don’t believe in objective moral values. I don’t believe that morality is based upon one’s conscience; however, a conscience can guide a person to a right decision. I think you have my definition wrong if you are basing it upon your caricature given above.

 

 

I made no such appeal. I'm not arguing for some sort of odd objective truth, like stone tablets descending from the sky with glowing light, displayed for all to see and know what right and wrong is. That might make this whole debate a whole lot easier, but we don't have that, now, do we? I'm arguing your definition of the words "subjective" and "objective", and I'd like a clearer definition from you for those two words.

 

You again are building a straw man of my argument. Stone tablets have nothing to do with my argument, that again is an epistemological issue (how we know) not an ontological (does it exist) question. OK, let me try again. Subjective, meaning that morals originate from within the subjects for whom they apply. Objective, meaning that morals originate from outside of the subjects for whom they apply. I, nor any other human being had any say in objective morals, they exist independent of humanity. Subjective morality does not exist apart from humanity as humanity is the source of morals. I hope that clears it up.

 

Perhaps in the grand, cosmic scheme of things, our morality is simply stating preferences. Perhaps you're absolutely right. But show me why that is a contradiction with reality. What if our morals are really "subjective" as you say they are? How do you go about proving that they are not? Or is your argument more of the nature, "I think that objective morals exist. And if they don't, they should exist." Of course, this would be circular logic, since you are applying a "should" statement to a system of "shoulds" (morals). But you wouldn't do something like that. So show me how morals are, in fact, objective. Start with cannibalism and slavery.

 

All I am saying is that if morals are subjective in nature, then there is ultimately no right or wrong, merely preference. We cannot say that something is objectively wrong or evil, we can only say that I don’t prefer such actions and those preferences have no ultimate sway over another person, except by force. Ultimately, a person can do whatever he or she wants to in this world as long as they don’t get caught doing something illegal (meaning they can do it if they can get away with it) because there is no ultimate standard and no ultimate consequence. So, Mother Teresa was, in reality of a subjective worldview, no better than Jeffrey Dahmer, just different in her preferences. However, our intuition would tell us differently. We believe that Mother Teresa was good and Dahmer was evil, because our intuition tells us that objective moral values do exist. We don’t go around committing acts of “evil” and strive to do acts that are “good” because we believe that there is a real objective standard of good and evil. I know of no person who espouses subjective moral values who is able to live consistently within that worldview. Those are some evidences; they may not be conclusive, but they give us good probabilistic reasons to believe in objective moral values. The best evidence is the existence of God, arguments for whose existence are many.

[LNC]

Ok, question, since god's morals do not come from an outside source, does that mean god's morals are therefore subjective and god believes in moral relativity rather than moral absolutes? And since you believe in god and according to your logic, god's morals must also be subjective, then shouldn't you also believe morals are subjective? And if we can't be moral unless our morals come from an outside source, then since god doesn't get his morals from an outside source, does that mean you've just confessed that your god is immoral?

 

No, I don't argue that God's morals come from an outside source, his come from his eternal and immutable nature, which also makes them objective, since they cannot change. So, no, God is not a moral relativist. Also, I am not saying that we cannot be moral unless morals come from an outside source. I am saying that morals are not objective unless they come from an objective source outside of humanity. Your argument is a somewhat confused version of the Euthyphro argument. Let me clear it up. God is an eternal, immutable (morally unchanging) being, morals are a reflection of God's nature, therefore, morals are objective and unchanging. God is, by definition, a perfect being, therefore, he acts according to his perfect nature and cannot violate it. He reflects his nature in us in the sense that we have his image imprinted on our souls (mind, emotion, will, and a moral conscience); however, we are rebellious and sinful human beings, therefore, we don't reflect his nature perfectly and are in need of redemption from our rebellion. That is why Jesus came, to live the perfect life that we were supposed to live, to die as a payment for our rebellion, and to rise again to give evidence that he had conquered sin and death and that his payment was sufficient and efficient for our salvation. By confessing our rebellion and trusting in Jesus as God's perfect sacrifice and payment for our sins, we too can have that payment apply to our sins and be back in right relationship with our Creator God.

 

I hope that clears it up.

[The-Captain]

Plato wants his cosmology back.

[Asimov]

According the Judeo-Christianity morals are based upon the nature of God which is immutable. By your definition moral values would be subjective to the individual and therefore, ultimately meaningless. You would have no basis upon which to say anything meaningful about anyone else’s moral views.

 

I think this is irrelevant to the discussion. This thread is taking a lot of tangents and I can't keep up with all of the discussion, I'm sure you probably dont' want to discuss the same thing with 4 or 5 different people either.

 

I'll focus on our topic, although I might pare it down a bit, ok?

[Ouroboros]

I am familiar with Wheeler's thought experiment. It really delves more into the world of philosophy than it does physics (not that physics isn't the foundation of his discussion) as it is dealing with the concepts of time and causality. Let me know how comfortable you are in getting into these two philosophical areas of discussion (models of time and principle of causation) before we launch into it. Overall, it is an interesting thought experiment; however, it does have some subtle flaws embedded within. So, let me know.

Wheeler made the thought experiment, but there has been real experiments conducted. Did you know about them?

 

Most experiment: 2007, the first "clean" experimental test of Wheeler's idea, was done in France by Aspect, Grangie, and Roch.

 

Before that, Yoon-Ho Kim, in 2000, did a slightly different experiment doing something called a quantum eraser. It was also done so the choice to observe the photon was made at a delayed state.

 

Another one was done in 2002, by Walborn, Cunha, Padua, and Monken.

 

Were those experiments wrong? There's no need to go into a philosophical debate of this idea if there is solid, valid, and accepted tests to confirm it. Or put it this way, we can't go into a philosophical debate unless we can agree on the premises. And I'd like to know why you don't approve of those tests?

 

--edit--

 

All the reference I see in magazines say the Aspect experiment was done in 2007, but the copy I have of their summary is from 2006, so I suspect it took a while for the peer-review to go through, or they made sure they had all the facts straight before they released the news. I don't want to retype what they wrote in the summary, but I'll try to do a screen-capture of the text and upload it here.

 

--edit--

 

[Jeff H]

I think this is irrelevant to the discussion. This thread is taking a lot of tangents and I can't keep up with all of the discussion, I'm sure you probably dont' want to discuss the same thing with 4 or 5 different people either.

I agree - sorry for extending the tangent. I just saw a place where I actually understood what you guys were talking about. All this physics and potential/actual infinites makes my head swim

 

But just for the record: I did have a reply for LNC about morality. I will just refrain from posting it

 

And as a suggestion, perhaps it would be helpful to reframe the discussion. It seems as though it might help cut off some of the tangents if there is a direction to the debate.

[Asimov]

I think this is irrelevant to the discussion. This thread is taking a lot of tangents and I can't keep up with all of the discussion, I'm sure you probably dont' want to discuss the same thing with 4 or 5 different people either.

I agree - sorry for extending the tangent. I just saw a place where I actually understood what you guys were talking about. All this physics and potential/actual infinites makes my head swim

 

But just for the record: I did have a reply for LNC about morality. I will just refrain from posting it

 

And as a suggestion, perhaps it would be helpful to reframe the discussion. It seems as though it might help cut off some of the tangents if there is a direction to the debate.

 

I'm just trying to come to a middle ground regarding the Cosmological argument, not really take it to a specific direction. I love ethics debates, but I just think this thread is getting long enough without adding more noise.

[Neon Genesis]

I also had a reply to the morality thread, but I wasn't sure if the discussion is being continued.