I Can't Shake It! Wtf Is Wrong With Me?

[chefranden]

I grant you that the first argument that I gave for personality, which you respond to above, is not the strongest of the arguments for God being personal; however, I think that your response, though interesting, is not pertinent. You are describing physical characteristics or make up of things, not immaterial make up. We can scientifically explain how physical entities are made up and that goes back to the existence of matter itself; however, it is not the same to attempt that with our non-physical make up. We can't take our personality and put it into a test tube and break it down to its physical properties - it has none. That is just the point, there is a part of us that is not scientific or reducible to the sum of its parts, and that part has to come from somewhere.

 

Show me an immaterial make up. Lay your soul on the table and I will fix it for you.

 

You have accused others of not being familiar with cosmology. I am accusing you of not being up to date with cognitive science. True you can't put your personality in a test tube. But you know what? Test tubes aren't always or even usually the best apparatus of science discovery. Anyway your personality is not some thing separate from your physical being. It is part of what your brain is doing at the moment. No brain, no personality. All you have to do to prove this statement wrong is lay your soul on a table.

 

You are still stuck in the time of Descartes. Descartes' Error is the book for you and it wouldn't hurt for you to read the rest of Damasio's work.

 

There is no part of us that will not eventually be reducible to the sum of it's parts. The clear historic trend is that arguments that religion has with science will eventually lost by religion to science.

 

Regarding your statement that the God of the Bible is only about 6,000 years old, I wonder from where this number comes? It sounds like you buy into the young-earth view of a 6,000 year old universe. I don't and, as such, don't put such an age on God. Even if the young-earth view were correct, it wouldn't mean that God was 6K years old. That is not sound thinking.

 

Don't type stupid. I don't buy into the young earth shit. By the way if you don't buy in the young earth creation story, you don't have any place to put Adam and Eve or special creation. Therefore all your arguments over the fall are just so much bullshit. There is no evidence outside of scripture for the age of God. Sure God was older than what he created, but one can't tell how much older. Might be a minute older as easily as your infinitely older.

 

Why is it useless to figure that something is older than the universe? If you believe this, then I assume that you believe that the universe is either eternally old or self-caused? The first premise is not sustainable with our current understanding of physics and the second premise is philosophically untenable. So, what other alternative explanations do you have?

 

Age is a function of time, more time more age. Time is is space. Space is time. If there is no universe there is no space. If there is no space there is no time. If there is no time there is no age. God cannot be older than the universe.

 

The Universe is not eternally old. It began at the big bang. The concept "before the big bang" is nonsense, because before is a function of time and time is part of the fabric of the universe. Again, no universe = no time. Stop telling me what I think, and address what I've written i.e. show how there is time before there is time.

 

That the universe is self caused is untenable by your philosophy, but not by mine. If anything can be self caused than something can be self caused. The universe is the best candidate for self cause, because we know it is here. The same can't be said for God. You can certainly have faith God is here, but that is not the same thing. However, I do not say that the universe is self caused. I only say that if anything is self caused then it must be the universe, and that the big bang would be the moment it caused itself. At the moment I can only say I don't know what happened. But I do know somethings that didn't happen, and Bible God is one of them. The Biblical creation story is myth, not data.

 

To say that if something immaterial can self-exist without an endless regression of causes, then the universe can as well, is simply a category mistake on your part. 1. You must deny physics and philosophy to come to such a conclusion. Is that what you are claiming? In no way does a self-existent timeless, immaterial being violate either physics or philosophy, it is a concept that philosophers have held as possible from early on and this doesn't even touch in the realm of science as God is not physical, which is where science draws its boundaries. Infinite causal regressions are fraught with logical absurdities, so in no way does that explanation make more sense than a personal God.

 

I don't have to deny physics. No one knows yet what the physics of the moment of initiation yet. As I've said above I don't know. However, if something can be self caused then the universe is the best candidate for being the self caused thing. Maybe if the people at CERN manage to see the beginning your God will be there, but I highly doubt it given the trends of science that keep finding the absence of your God everywhere it has been able to look.

 

Buy the way philosophy is an opinion and there are plenty of philosophers that disagree heartily with your philosophers, who ever they may be. You keep saying that God is not physical. Show me something that is not physical. You keep saying the non-material is there but the only evidence you talk about is physical. The physical universe is supposed to be evidence of a non-physical being, but I don't see how that follows outside of faith. This is like me showing you my bathtub as evidence of the invisible green Martians that live in it.

 

Above you use personality as evidence of the non-material. Here is your chance to prove it. Show how personality has nothing to do with the physical.

[Justin]

LNC, you don't have to respond to every letter of every post that someone puts on here. Most people don't like to wait exactly a WEEK for you to address them.

 

What made you sad to leave atheism? Why did you leave it?

 

The fact that i was conditioned to christianity my entire life, the fact that i was, at the time in uncharted seas, left me feeling scared. I went back to christianity because it was all i knew, what i have been conditioned to. I went back to it knowing that most of it could not be true, but i did anyway because, like i said, it was all i knew.

 

That is a later interpretation by Bishop Ussher came up with in the 17th century, but that is not what the early church fathers believed. So, you have your history wrong.

 

It doesn't take much to see how they got 6,000 years for the age of the earth by following the geneologies of the Bible, regardless of who first saw it or how much later it was from the original writings. Furthermore, most ancients did believe in a young earth and it wasn't until modern science saw that the earth was much older than what was written in various holy books that that idea changed.

 

Which one do you ascribe to? Origin of life science has pretty much discounted the belief that a primordial soup ever existed and the atmosphere of the early earth would have been much too hostile to permit abiogenesis to occur. Panspermia (life from outer space) also has its problems mostly due to the hostile environment of space being filled with radiation and other threats to life.

 

As with the origin of the universe, i don't know. There is nothing wrong with saying that. As for the primordial soup theory. If it is discounted, then why did i see a program on it not to long ago on the History Channel as still a very likely possibility? They were saying that the early atmosphere would actually have been right to support early forms of microbial life due to the intense heat it would have provided.

 

One of those problems is the origin of life, which technically is outside of the realm of the theory of evolution, which explains changes over time, not the origin of life. Yet, the origin of life issue is one that is proving very troublesome for naturalists.

 

Why can't you see how hard it would be to know how life originated? This was billions of years ago and there is little to nothing left as evidence to go by. Fact is, we probably won't ever know for certain. You saying "God" with no more proof as the next person is just a cop out. Why should we believe your assertion that a god did it with nothing to show as proof over any other theories? Also, like i mentioned before, who's god?

 

Does one have to be a physician to notice that a person with a gaping wound is going to bleed to death unless given proper medical attention? I am not sure that I mentioned what my degrees were, did I? However, my degrees are not the issue, I believe that we were talking about the theory of evolution and the problems with the theory.

 

Unless your degrees are in evolutionary biology or the like, then i don't believe your opinions or cuttings and pastings can override established science.

 

God doesn't have fingers and doesn't snap. However, you asked a question about the straw man argument, so let me provide an answer. A straw man argument is a misrepresentation of an opponent's position in order to more easily knock it down. You claim that I appeal to magic (a common straw man argument used by atheists and agnostics against Christians) and then attempt to ridicule me for such. I don't appeal to magic at all as magic is based upon illusion. To say that God is invisible is not to say that he is not real. If that were the case, then we would have to throw out much of physics as it is based upon things that are not visible to us (neutrinos, dark matter, etc.). So, is that a point on which you want to stand?

 

I know what a straw man argument is, and i did not create a straw man there when you said i did. You do believe in magic and hocus-pocus because you think a supernatural entity spoke everything into existence. I made another post dealing with this, but at your rate it will take you a month to get to it. I'm not saying that god being invisible is to say that is proof that he doesn't exist, merely how are we to know which god is the god of the universe and how are we to follow him, how are we to get to him when we die, when he makes to attempt to appear and show his self or speak to us, like he did in the OT. If we are to surrender our lives and follow him and all eternity rides on him, then he should at least have make himself known. Furthermore, those things like black matter and neutrinos you mentioned can be proven when other things are examined. Take a black hole for example. There are no pictures of them, yet scientists know they are there for they have observed planets in rotation around nothing, being pulled closer and closer to the center of the nothing. The same cannot be said for god, for there is nothing that can validate the existence of a god.

 

However, if one discounts one set of explanations (the supernatural) then one is left with the natural and that means that you have to explain the universe as having popped into existence uncaused or having existed form eternity past. Science discounts the latter and philosophy the former. So, what you are saying is that "nothingdidit" is better than "goddidit"? I don't see that as satisfying at all. What you are appealing to is known as scientism, not science. Scientific positivism, which is what you seem to be advocating has been shown to be philosophically problematic for years as it is reductionistic in nature and discounts truth that lies outside of the scientific method. The basis of scientific positivism is self-defeating as it cannot be tested scientifically. So, really, I don't know how you promote such faulty ideas. So, tell me what these books do to prove your point? I don't see anything in them that does

 

I'm saying that 'idon'tknowdidit'. You are claiming to know the impossible each time you say 'goddidit'. Those books i listed take on the universe in a scientific light, you won't find any of your 'goddidit' ideas in there.

[Justin]

Maybe God wanted to give them a reason to trust in him. You see it as temptation, maybe God saw it as a way to give them a small way to trust in him since they didn't have to trust him for their food, water, etc.

 

Why not give them a better reason to trust in him than one that would wind up causing all the ills of the world, the fall from paradise, eternal punishment? Also, why would he need a reason for them to trust in him? For crying out loud, he created them, conversed with them... They knew he was god and the creator. If that wasn't enough to get them to obey and trust him then i don't know what else could.

 

As far as temptations go, it was as small a temptation as it could be.

 

What a laugh. A small temptation? I do not consider it a small anything when it set into play death, suffering and hellish torment for all eternity.

 

Are you saying that as an atheist there are no temptations any more for you?

 

Sure there are. But the difference is that i will not be punished by a god for my actions when i do give into temptation, temptations that the god put there in the first place.

 

You also misunderstand the nature of the sin. Sin is rebellion against an infinite God.

 

You also misunderstand the nature of common sense. It isn't so much an issue of sin as it is a screwed up scenario created by god. God knew what would happen, and god had the ability to stop it or alter it. He did not. He acts as though we are perfect beings that should not sin and punishes us according to that. We are not perfect and are exactly as he made us. Sin is inescapable for us yet we are punished so damn severly for it, the most severe thing that could be done.

 

Threatening your neighbor will get you a lesser punishment than threatening the President of the U.S. So, sinning against an eternal God merits an eternal punishment. Besides, why would anyone who has rejected God in the finite world want to spend eternity with him?

 

I disagree with how that works too. A human life is a human life. Crime should be punished for what was commited, not for the caliber of the person it was commited upon. So you are still saying finite sins equals infinite torture. What does an infinte god have to do with infinte punishment really? The concept of right and wrong and justice and equality does not apply to such a being? Obviously not. Which is one of the biggest reasons i will never worship a god such as this. He has no concept of right and wrong, he does what he wants for any reason whatsoever and screw anyone for questioning it. I don't know about you, but worshipping a being such as that is down right scary. As for why anyone who has rejected god would want to spend eternity with him, well, it would sure beat hell. Or why can't god just kill them? Rendure them dead and thats that? No afterlife or anything, just death? Like how you were before you were born, nothing.

 

God placed one tree out of probably thousands for them to avoid, how is that a huge temptation? They didn't need the fruit from that tree as they had more than they could ever eat on the others. Why do you assume that I cannot judge right from wrong? Adam and Eve weren't kids, so your analogy breaks down. They were grown adults with a full explanation of the consequences of disobedience and a full understanding of the goodness of the God who created them and provided for their every need.

 

You are missing the point. No, Adam and Eve were not kids, rather, they were fallible and simple human beings that were imperfect who were unable to avoid the unavoildable trap that is sin, and were punished barbarically according to it. Again, it is not a question on whether or not they could have avoided the temptation, it is a matter of being overly punished for small, petty sins. Overkill, especially since their eternal punishment would not even teach them anything, which is the whole basis for punishment.

 

How do you figure that I don't advocate a world with rules and consequences, isn't that what you are railing against? Barbarism and insanity would be a world where people could do whatever they wanted with no consequences. Again, you have to do more than just assert that the punishment didn't fit the crime. We don't hear of Adam and Eve complaining to God when he gave them the rule or when he gave the consequences.

 

You advocate a world with rules and death, rules and barbarisim. Punishment that FAR outweights the crime. You excuss this god's actions by saying crap like "he is infinite", without explaining how in blazes that means anything, like that solves it all. Don't you tell me that i have to do more than assert the punishment doesn't fit the crime, common sense can tell anyone who has morals and intelligence and a heart what is right and what is wrong. You beliefs have clouded your judgment into believing that this is all ok and fine and dandy, god is infinte, so therefore we cannot judge. If Hitler had been a character in the Bible, and it was written that he was doing what he did on orders from god, you'd be all for it. As for why didn't Adam and Eve say squat about to god about anything? Well, it's because the ficticuous myth was written that way.

 

So, let me ask you, on what do you base your morality? You seem quite judgmental of God, so on what system do you base such a judgment? Just curious.

 

I base my morality on common sense and simply right and wrong. I look at how i want to be treated, even when i need to be punished, fairness and justice. Humanity has defined the collective morality pretty dare well without first consulting a god.

[LNC]

And yet Christianity teaches us that we are bound by a "sin nature". So it posits no free will either.

 

That does not follow. We can have both a sin nature and be free agents. Having a sin nature just means that we have an inclination toward sin, not that we are bound to act according to that inclination.

[LNC]

If the past, present and future are known with 100% certainty by your hypothetical god, then it would be incapable of initiating any contradictory actions without invalidating its own knowledge.

That is simply a faulty way of looking at it. God knows all truth, and if God wanted a certain outcome, he would have always known that to be true. God doesn't change his mind, so to conflate that with God being trapped is a false dichotomy.

 

Frankly, I don't think that you're one iota better off than Me in your relationship to "reality". Until otherwise demonstrated, you just have a different flavour of illusion.

So, you admit that you live in illusion? However, I have good reason to believe that my worldview fits the reality of what I see around me. It is coherent and consistent with what we know to be true. So, no I don't live in illusion as you suggest.

 

When I'm meditating I try to stay in the present. I do not strive to meditate on the past or future; I get enough of that in My regular thoughts.

OK, so it is only in meditation that your thoughts remain in the present, now I get what you are saying.

 

And I clearly said that I do not think that moral values can be objective. If they come from a god, they are the subjective morality of that god... Not objective.

That is just to misunderstand the meaning of objective morals. When we refer to objective morals, we are saying that they derive from outside of man or our environment and are immutable. God is eternal, immutable, and moral values are derived from his nature, so in that way that are objective.

[LNC]

Ethics/morality are objective, relative, situational, and subjective. The grounding of ethics/morality is life itself;no people or animals=no ethics/morality. It is about relationships between beings.

 

Ethics/morality are objective because life is subject to causality. "Actions have consequences, which arise because of natural, psychological, and social laws."-Francois Tremblay. Because of cause/effect due to our existence, we have needs that are vital to our lives. We must have food, water, etc. to live. In this limited sense, ethics is objective.

It is the starting base for the rest of our ethical and moral system where it becomes situational, relative, and subjective.

 

Ethics cannot be both objective and relative, situational, and subjective, that is a contradiction. Trembly's argument in no way makes morality objective. He says that we must have food and water to live, but doesn't say why we must live, he merely assumes that point. So, in a sense he is committing circular reasoning to prove his point.

 

However, if morality is subjective, then morality is ultimately meaningless, for who then is the definer of what is right or wrong? Each person is a law unto themselves and then the world is left in chaos. We can no longer say that anyone is wrong, just that we don't prefer that behavior - to which the person can answer, "so what, I do prefer it!"

[Justin]

That is simply a faulty way of looking at it. God knows all truth, and if God wanted a certain outcome, he would have always known that to be true. God doesn't change his mind, so to conflate that with God being trapped is a false dichotomy.

 

Isn't it interesting everytime christians try and say we resort to the same tactics as they themselves are famous for doing? Furthermore, God wanted to kill Moses but changed his mind because of his wife's actions. God would have changed his mind had Lot found just one righteous person in Sodom and Gomorah. True, he didn't actually change his mind but he left the possibility open.

 

However, I have good reason to believe that my worldview fits the reality of what I see around me.

 

So when you look at the reality of a spherical earth and a non geocentric earth, that fits with your worldview? When you look at space do you not see a near infinite space and not a solid sky dome covering the earth with the stars etched in it with holes so that the sun and moon may pass through? When you go outside and take a stroll, are you not taken aback by not seeing behemoth and the fire breathing sea serpent, Leviathan? Or when you look up in the sky are you not dismayed at not seeing those fiery flying serpents? Go to Bibleorigins.net. In short, you do have good reason to believe that your worldview fits the reality of what you see around yourself, just like Ken Ham does, by distorting and contorting the facts to fit your ideology.

[LNC]

You mean that morality is material in nature, or do you mean that a materialist can accept something that cannot be proved by scientific testing and empirical verification?

So morality defined by the different philosophical theories are wrong, because they are not taken from the Bible or given in a vision from God? So when the Greeks laid out reciprocation as a possible foundation for morality hundreds of years before Jesus, they were wrong, while Jesus was right when he did it? Such hypocrisy.

Your answer bears no relation to what I said.

It does too. Your inability to understand it doesn't excuse you from answering. You claim morality can't exist without God. Well, it does.

If you look at my original statement to which you replied and I readded above, you will see that it does not address my point. I have never said that morality cannot exist apart from God, only an objective basis for morality. Man is capable of making up all kinds of rules and regulations, but they are subjective in nature by definition.

 

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." (Pittacus)[3]

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." (Thales)[4]

"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them." (Sextus the Pythagorean)[5]

"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." (Isocrates)[6]

"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." (Epictetus)[7]

"It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing 'neither to harm nor be harmed'[8]),

 

and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life." (Epicurus)[9]

They were all wrong, because they didn't know Jesus.

 

But, "Do to others..." by Jesus, ooooooh, that must be good then...

 

Again, the question is not what morals are, but whether they have objective grounding. We have to answer that question first, and you have to do it from an atheistic perspective. Otherwise, we are merely speaking about preferences.

It proves that morality grows with or without God. So in reality and history you can see it can and it does, so God is not the answer for morality. It's not about objective grounding, but about subjective. Which is the middle ground between vulgar relativism and divine command.

 

The challenge you really have is: to define what absolute morality is, and give an example of it. For instance, how do you go about solving the trolley problem using your "absolute" morality? So far in my studies in ethics I haven't seen anyone being able to argue for absolute morality. It doesn't exist in the sphere of reason and philosophy. The best argument I've ever heard was the idea of using a retreat of representatives (a though experiment) to find what foundational morality we all can agree upon. (And I think the professor was a liberal Christian even.)

 

Again, I never said that morality cannot grow up in the absence of God. I have consistently said that those moral systems are subjective in nature because they are a product of man's doing. Then the question is whose morality rules? We end up in a system of might makes right.

 

I prefer to speak of objective morality which is morality that is grounded in in a transcendent and immutable source. We would also assume that that source is personal to be able to communicate that moral system to us, and powerful to enforce that moral system. Your problem in your questions is that you are trying to reason your way to objective morality and that is not possible. One philosopher described that as trying to work from the particulars to the universal, which is not possible. It is much like trying to count to infinity, you never get there. That is why I believe that objective morality must be revealed to us. The problem with the Trolley Problem itself is that it already assumes that killing the people is wrong, it never explains how it arrived at that conclusion. It is set up as a utilitarian problem, not ultimately to explain why anything is wrong.

[Justin]

As Cheif said, it is all hearsay. No eyewitness accounts. It would be like me saying, "Godzilla lived in 1950's-60's Japan", without me ever being born in that time or having lived there.

Are you kidding me? You need to do a little homework before making statements like this. Even liberal historians and atheists like Gerd Lüdemann would consider this a ridiculous assertion.

 

You need to do your homework chief. There is nothing, repeat, nothing that validates what the Bible says about Jesus's miracles and life except the Bible itself. Extra biblical accounts of Jesus are nothing more than what can be gained from simply picking up something and reading about him or hearing people talk about him.

[LNC]

Hah! You didn't answer my question. A free agency executes free actions. The free actions are free will. You try to avoid answering by spinning the wheels.

 

You are using the argument for observed contingency as "proof" of the first cause as being an intellect. And then you claim free will exists, and when I call you on it to be contradictory to your first cause argument, you demand me to prove to you that free will exists? The question is, if YOU believe free will exists and also first cause argument, then YOU have to explain how free will can be "free" and yet not contingent to the first cause. Don't put it on me to prove things you claim to exist. You're just stalling.

 

And no, it's not only doing what DNA directs us to. Do you know what biopsychosocial theory in Psychology means? Do you understand moral subjectivism? The structure is more complex that just DNA. You're taking the ideas to the extreme, just so you can claim the ideas to be wrong, it's called strawman.

 

Jesus commanded you to sell everything you own and give to the poor, and follow him, or else you're not a true Christian. Have you done it yet?

 

Morality is absolute in the sense of it's a required rule based relationship to establish equilibrium in a set of actors. It is automatically the best balance between the actors to create maximum survival. Survival, long life, health, happiness, are the things that drives the actors, and the relationships demand a sense of stability and security. Hence moral grows out of the need of that stability. It's math. It's absolute like math. It exists like math. But it's too complex to be made into a formula (yet).

 

Do you know that animals show behavior of morals? Monkeys, dogs, and I think they've been studied in other animals too. How do you explain that without a Bible, without prayer, and without preachers? Did Jesus die for the dogs too? Did Dog-Jesus hand out bacon instead at the Last Supper?

 

What, is this a game of "gotcha!"? Free agents have free will, but that free will is of a limited nature, so maybe my answer could have been more complete; however, I did answer your question.

 

I give my kids a level of freedom to choose; however, that doesn't give them the freedom or the power to choose anything at any time. Do they have freedom, yes, where I allow it. This in no way violates the idea of God as the cause of the universe. Neither did I demand that you prove that free will exist. I merely want you to prove that free will can exist given a purely naturalistic framework, which I believe will give you difficulty.

 

Regarding biopsychosocial theory, let me ask you a simple question that will sort things out quickly. Are you a mind/body dualist? If so, on what do you base the mind? How do we come to have something called a mind that is not controlled by out body, but the other way around? That will help me to understand from where you are coming and where you are going with this theory. Regarding moral subjectivism, yes I do understand what it means.

 

Jesus commanded the rich young ruler to sell everything and to come follow him. That was not a general command. You may want to read the story to find out for yourself. Yet, if the Lord called me to do that same, I am hopeful that he would allow me to do that.

 

How do you know this to be true of morality? Can you predict the outcome of actions on the survivability of the species? Who said that the survivability of this species was an ultimate good? You have a lot of assumptions that you need to explain in an objective manner. Now, I am not saying that these things aren't good, I am just challenging you from your post to explain how you come to these conclusions. Since you say it is math and math tests require one to show their work leading to the answer, I will ask you to do the same.

 

Are you implying that animals are moral agents? If so, we should begin to punish them right away. If that chimpanzee had not been killed this week, would you have suggested that he be put on trial for attempted murder? Even if animals show behavior that appears to us to be moral in nature, we cannot read their intent and to assume that they were acting as moral agents would simply be supposition. No, Jesus did not die for the animals as he did not come in their form, nor does God hold them accountable for their actions as they were not created in his image. It is very fortunate for the animals since for every apparent moral action we see from animals, there are a lot more that we could call immoral. As Alfred Lord Tennyson wrote, nature is "red in tooth and claw."

[LNC]

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

 

My point is that your statement is just another made up definition from apologetics arguments, back in my days as a christian we used to call statements like this "bumper sticker theology," because that's what it is, short little stock phrases that don't actually mean much, but sound cute and catchy.

 

As for ripping on people, I tried having a reasonable conversation with you. However, that is totally impossible when one party is not reasonable.

OK, so tell me how this definition actually makes your original point.

[Ouroboros]

If you look at my original statement to which you replied and I readded above, you will see that it does not address my point. I have never said that morality cannot exist apart from God, only an objective basis for morality. Man is capable of making up all kinds of rules and regulations, but they are subjective in nature by definition.

Correct. They are subjective. And with a God giving absolute moral codes, humans will interpret those laws and codes subjectively still, and we'll always end up with subjective views on morality. So why even bother asking if moral is subjective or not, because it will always be that, with or without God.

 

So I'm not even sure why you even brought up the subject to begin with!

 

Again, I never said that morality cannot grow up in the absence of God. I have consistently said that those moral systems are subjective in nature because they are a product of man's doing. Then the question is whose morality rules? We end up in a system of might makes right.

Yes, kind'a.

 

The thing is how we define what "might" is.

 

I prefer to speak of objective morality which is morality that is grounded in in a transcendent and immutable source.

You can speak about them, but as a subjective person, you will never be able to absolutely or objectively know them. You can only believe that your interpretation or understanding of what is supposed to be objective moral is, but that is your personal and subjective belief and view still. You could accidentally even know an absolute truth, but you wouldn't really know. You can believe it, but you can't know it, since you are not an objective observer yourself.

 

We would also assume that that source is personal to be able to communicate that moral system to us, and powerful to enforce that moral system. Your problem in your questions is that you are trying to reason your way to objective morality and that is not possible. One philosopher described that as trying to work from the particulars to the universal, which is not possible. It is much like trying to count to infinity, you never get there. That is why I believe that objective morality must be revealed to us. The problem with the Trolley Problem itself is that it already assumes that killing the people is wrong, it never explains how it arrived at that conclusion. It is set up as a utilitarian problem, not ultimately to explain why anything is wrong.

Okay. But that means every person needs to get that revelation of the objective moral, because if you get the revelation and then tell me what that revelation is, then I have to trust you, not know for sure, but assume or believe that you got the absolute moral revelation, while I didn't. So how would we overcome that problem?

 

If God is powerful enough to enforce his absolute morals, then why doesn't he? Are you talking about earthquakes and tornadoes, or eternal punishment in Hell for disobeying some vague instruction in a 2,000 year old book?

[LNC]

So what? DNA neither cares nor knows. However, it constructs an individual that both cares and knows. DNA neither stings nor flies, but it constructs individual bees that can do both. DNA as neither leaves or sap, but it constructs trees that have both.

Dawkins theories have many problems to them, it assumes that certain properties are objectively good and that somehow, evolution selects for these objective goods. He doesn't explain how the objective good exists, neither does he explain how these features are selected for long term survival. Other traits could have been selected that would have led to the short demise of our species. We also show many traits that do not promote the long term survival of the species and these should have been selected out long ago.

 

Your explanation above sounds nice, but it is overly simplistic to explain why we should care or know anything. Why are we self-reflective creatures and why does that aid in our survival. Why do people sacrifice lives for people who have low survival possibilities. This explanation stirs up more questions than it answers.

[Ouroboros]

What, is this a game of "gotcha!"?

Yes, and you're it.

 

Free agents have free will, but that free will is of a limited nature, so maybe my answer could have been more complete; however, I did answer your question.

No you didn't.

 

If I make a decision, and I do it with free will, than I was ultimately the source (first cause) of that decision, not God.

 

I give my kids a level of freedom to choose; however, that doesn't give them the freedom or the power to choose anything at any time. Do they have freedom, yes, where I allow it. This in no way violates the idea of God as the cause of the universe. Neither did I demand that you prove that free will exist. I merely want you to prove that free will can exist given a purely naturalistic framework, which I believe will give you difficulty.

If I decide to create a paper air plane, did God cause it to exist?

 

Regarding biopsychosocial theory, let me ask you a simple question that will sort things out quickly. Are you a mind/body dualist?

Not really. I believe the mind emerges from the process. Exactly how, I don't know, and will never know, but I still think there's more evidence pointing that direction than dualism.

 

If so, on what do you base the mind? How do we come to have something called a mind that is not controlled by out body, but the other way around? That will help me to understand from where you are coming and where you are going with this theory. Regarding moral subjectivism, yes I do understand what it means.

 

Jesus commanded the rich young ruler to sell everything and to come follow him. That was not a general command. You may want to read the story to find out for yourself. Yet, if the Lord called me to do that same, I am hopeful that he would allow me to do that.

Cherry picking. How come other "instructions" in the Bible are commands to you and this one is not? The 10 commandments were really for Israel, not you. If the game is "who was it spoken to," then nothing in the Bible is to you.

 

How do you know this to be true of morality? Can you predict the outcome of actions on the survivability of the species? Who said that the survivability of this species was an ultimate good? You have a lot of assumptions that you need to explain in an objective manner. Now, I am not saying that these things aren't good, I am just challenging you from your post to explain how you come to these conclusions. Since you say it is math and math tests require one to show their work leading to the answer, I will ask you to do the same.

You say you understand subjetivism and other theories, and yet you ask these stupid questions those theories answer. Are you doing this intentionally?

 

I'm starting to wonder if you read posts, log out, read and study the subjects cursory, and then come back with selective attacks so make you sound good, because you keep on responding with questions you really shouldn't have if you knew the things you claim you know! Why the heck did you even started asking one single question about morality if you have studied moral philosophy? Your questions reveal that you haven't really done the homework at all. A car mechanic doesn't ask someone else for where the wheels are, or how to open the hood, and that's what I see you keep on doing, over and over again.

 

Are you implying that animals are moral agents? If so, we should begin to punish them right away. If that chimpanzee had not been killed this week, would you have suggested that he be put on trial for attempted murder? Even if animals show behavior that appears to us to be moral in nature, we cannot read their intent and to assume that they were acting as moral agents would simply be supposition. No, Jesus did not die for the animals as he did not come in their form, nor does God hold them accountable for their actions as they were not created in his image. It is very fortunate for the animals since for every apparent moral action we see from animals, there are a lot more that we could call immoral. As Alfred Lord Tennyson wrote, nature is "red in tooth and claw."

Sigh, I don't know if it's even worth trying to explain anything to you. You obviously know more than any of the authors I've read, or the philosophers I've heard in lectures, so why should I even argue with you. Good luck on your adventures, because I'm done. I was hoping you had more to come with this time around, but you really do not.

[LNC]

Just admit it, you're cutting and pasting from some listserv somewhere. But they don't have the answer to my question. he he he.

 

 

That would be easy enough for you to check out. I am still awaiting an answer from you.

 

Name calling is what one refers to when one doesn't have an argument.

 

I did give you an answer. I said that the principles of non-harm contained within Buddhism was my basis for thinking killing babies is wrong.

 

But you're just pretending not to understand the question and answering questions with questions. And that's because you simply want to avoid the issue: is killing babies wrong or not?

 

You're seem like a coward. If you're not a coward, answer the question simply and directly. I've answered your question regarding my basis for believing that genocide is wrong, even though I don't think it is legitimate. Now answer mine: was the killing of babies in 1 Samuel chapter 15 right or wrong?

 

Until you do that simple thing, I don't see why anyone here gives you the respect of engaging with you. You seem like a bullshit artist. If you're not, you'll answer my simple question without further nonsense and delay.

 

OK, now you are shifting the argument again. You made an accusation and threw an epithet for which you have not answered. You have not been able to show that I have in any way been cutting or pasting answers, because I don't.

 

Now, you give this answer of Buddhism as your basis of thinking that killing babies is wrong. However, that does not answer my question. I asked for an objective basis, which Buddhism does not offer you. If you think it does, then you will have to explain how. Yet, I know about Buddhism and know that it does not ground morality in an objective source.

 

You like to call names without providing adequate answers. You must show me that you ground morality in an objective source before we can begin to discuss this, otherwise, we are merely exchanging opinions. You seem to like to throw around epithets, but I am looking for legitimate answers from you, and until you can provide them, you have given me no reason to go further into the conversation with you. It is as simple as that.

[LNC]

LNC,

 

What ever the reason for not answering the question you may have, you are facing Eurhyphro's Dilemma. Is the good good because God loves it (or does it). Or does God love and do the good because it is the good that is intrinsic.

 

If it is the former, then the good is arbitrary based on the whim of God at the moment. Thus killing babies could be good or bad depending on the mood of God. This means that the good is not absolute, objective and unchanging. This is the picture of Bible God according to the writings. I call this the great Mafia Don in the Sky.

 

If God loves and does the good because it is good then God does not rule. The good rules and God must subject himself to it. In this case if it is bad for you to kill babies, then it is bad for God to kill babies, and if it is good for God to kill babies, then it is good for you to kill babies.

 

This is a question that theists have answered long ago. Euthyphro is a faulty dilemma in that God neither merely commands that which is good nor is subject to some sort of good outside of himself. The good is defined by God's immutable and eternal nature, as I have explained to other posters on this site. God's commands are a reflection of that eternal and immutable nature so they are not arbitrary in nature, nor are they reflective of some reality outside of him, for if that were the case, then that would be God. I hope that is clear to you, feel free to ask questions if you have them.

[Astreja]

If the past, present and future are known with 100% certainty by your hypothetical god, then it would be incapable of initiating any contradictory actions without invalidating its own knowledge.

That is simply a faulty way of looking at it. God knows all truth...

Unsupported assertion and existential fallacy. Still no evidence for your god.

 

When I'm meditating I try to stay in the present. I do not strive to meditate on the past or future; I get enough of that in My regular thoughts.

OK, so it is only in meditation that your thoughts remain in the present, now I get what you are saying. {emphasis Mine}

This is not an accurate assessment of My relationship to mindfulness meditation. I do frequently experience the same focus in the course of My day-to-day affairs as well, and can call it up at will wherever I am... Not just in formal meditation practice.

 

And I clearly said that I do not think that moral values can be objective. If they come from a god, they are the subjective morality of that god... Not objective.

That is just to misunderstand the meaning of objective morals. When we refer to objective morals, we are saying that they derive from outside of man or our environment and are immutable. God is eternal, immutable, and moral values are derived from his nature, so in that way that are objective.

Unsupported assertion with multiple existential fallacies. However, if these alleged "objective" values are derived from the nature of your hypothetical god, how is it that that the god described in the Bible regularly violates its own alleged nature by breaking the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment? Call it 'objective' if you want, but if a god can't even obey its own rules, what good is that morality?

[agnosticator]

Agnosticator:Ethics/morality are objective, relative, situational, and subjective. The grounding of ethics/morality is life itself;no people or animals=no ethics/morality. It is about relationships between beings.

 

Ethics/morality are objective because life is subject to causality. "Actions have consequences, which arise because of natural, psychological, and social laws."-Francois Tremblay. Because of cause/effect due to our existence, we have needs that are vital to our lives. We must have food, water, etc. to live. In this limited sense, ethics is objective.

It is the starting base for the rest of our ethical and moral system where it becomes situational, relative, and subjective.

 

LNC:Ethics cannot be both objective and relative, situational, and subjective, that is a contradiction. Trembly's argument in no way makes morality objective. He says that we must have food and water to live, but doesn't say why we must live, he merely assumes that point. So, in a sense he is committing circular reasoning to prove his point.

 

People exist and are the objective reference, starting point, and standard for morality to exist at all. Morality has everything to do with life itself.

We must live or die-no why is needed. Beyond this, morality is subjective and relative. There is no contradiction or circular reasoning for this starting point or base.

 

However, if morality is subjective, then morality is ultimately meaningless, for who then is the definer of what is right or wrong? Each person is a law unto themselves and then the world is left in chaos. We can no longer say that anyone is wrong, just that we don't prefer that behavior - to which the person can answer, "so what, I do prefer it!"

 

Well you blind yourself to the fact that people on earth, regardless of religion, have been/are for the most part not in chaos, and don't find morality to be meaningless. Humanity has been and always will be the definers of right and wrong. Religions tack on morality to supernatural beliefs. If there were no earthly consequences for behavior, and it were left up to god, there certainly would be chaos!

[LNC]

Your argument makes no sense at all. Saying that God doesn't need to have been created because he's has no physical form is like saying invisible pink unicorns are real because they're invisible. It makes no sense at all. For one thing, how do you know an invisible God doesn't need to be created because they're invisible? Have you ever met an invisible god to know this to be true? Furthermore, what evidence do you have that God doesn't have a physical form? If you're going to claim God is an invisible being that doesn't need to be created, you're again going to have to prove it. You simply saying so doesn't prove anything other than you're an adult who believes in imaginary friends.

 

You didn't address my post at all. I didn't say that God didn't need to be created because he is invisible, I said immaterial, there is a difference. We have physical laws to explain that material things require a cause; however, we don't the same laws for immaterial things. So, if you have a reason why an immaterial being must have a cause outside of himself, please let me know. John 4:24, "God is spirit" and spirits, by definition are immaterial. You can also look up the definition of God in any dictionary to arrive at the same conclusion.

 

This analogy makes no sense. Of course when you step out on a cliff, you're going to fall because we know gravity exists because we've seen the effects of gravity. But you have not demonstrated evidence that we've seen the effects of God to prove that he's real. So again, how can we rebel against something we don't believe exists? Are you rebelling against Santa Claus because you don't believe in him? Remind me to send you a lump of coal for Christmas. Besides, I thought you said gravity doesn't count as an analogy for God because we can see the effects of gravity? So, why are you turning around and using gravity as an analogy? If gravity works as an analogy, then my point still stands that gravity doesn't need to be fine tuned by a god to exist. If the analogy doesn't work, then you can't use gravity as an analogy for God unless you're going to admit God does have a physical form. Again, you are proving that you are nothing more than a hypocrite and a liar.

 

So, I suppose that you have a naturalistic explanation for the existence and origin of the universe. Now, don't tell me that you don't have to have an explanation as so many atheists tell me. If you deny that God created the universe, you need to come up with an alternative that makes both scientific and philosophical sense. I believe that it is one of the best evidences for God's existence, along with the fine-tuning, and objective moral values. However, you may have a better explanation for these and I am waiting to hear what they are. Again, you can rebel against something that you believe doesn't exist, because, your beliefs don't define reality. You may have false beliefs and those false beliefs won't excuse you. We can see both the effects of gravity and the effects of God and I never said otherwise. So, you say that gravity doesn't need to be fine-tuned by God to exist, please explain to me how it is so finely tuned? Or, do you continue to deny proved scientific understanding that says that it is extremely finely tuned? Please explain and stop the name calling, especially when you have not even made a valid point on which you are trying to base it.

 

Why should "rebellion" be punished when most non-Christians aren't going around hurting anyone and just want to live their own lives in peace? Because you say so? Who died and made you god?

 

So, are you saying that rebellion should be tolerated? I don't make the rules, I just try to live by them as best I can. Also, you seem to have a problem with the rules that God made, yet you don't have a problem in judging them wrong and, in essence, putting yourself in the position of authority. So, may I ask, who made you god?

 

No, it is your religion that supports the Holocaust. Because if Christians believe they will go to heaven if they accept Jesus and Jews will go to hell because they didn't, then according to those beliefs, God does think the Jews deserved to be tortured for not accepting Jesus and Hitler was acting out hell on Earth. Do you believe that Anne Frank is going to hell because she was a Jew and Hitler will go to heaven because he was a Christian? If you do, then how is that not a support of the Holocaust? Coincidentally, Hitler used the exact same arguments you're using against us now to justify the Holocaust. Here's a direct quote from Hitler himself.

 

Again, may I state this clearly so that you atheists don't continue to repeat these straw man arguments. Jews will not go to hell because they didn't accept Jesus. People go to hell for rebelling against God. Besides, accepting Jesus is nowhere taught in the Bible, we are called to trust in Jesus. No, no one is going to hell because they are Jewish, German, Irish, or any other nationality, religion, or race. People go to hell for rebelling against God. Let me state that again in case that wasn't clear, people go to hell for rebelling against God and for no other reason. So, contrary to your false accusation and belief, I do not, and Christianity does not support the Holocaust. You probably don't know this, but Hitler was an adherent to the thinking of Nietzsche, an avowed atheist. How do I know this? I just did some research that I published in a paper on Hitler's beliefs.

 

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

Doesn't this sound awfully familiar to you? And aren't you saying the same thing that Hitler says here?

 

He goes on to say, "In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison." Funny, Hitler must have forgotten (or not known) that Jesus was a Jew. So, obviously, he wasn't driving Jews from the Temple, but money-changers and cheats. Too bad Hitler wasn't a good enough Christian to have read and understood the Bible he claimed to be representing.

 

He then continues, "Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross." So, are we to believe that Hitler understood the Bible to be saying that Jesus died on the cross to wipe out Jews, of which he was one. That, my friend, is some lousy hermeneutics, and worse theology. And, you want to claim that Hitler was a Christian?

 

But that's not all, here he goes again, "When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited." So, how, by dying on the cross, did Jesus turn against those who were exploiting people? How does Hitler come to his conclusion from the Bible? Answer: He doesn't, he is using the Bible as a cover for his National Socialist agenda. He wouldn't be the first to do so and wasn't the last.

 

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

And yet you want to claim Christians have the moral high ground over non-Christians? And tell me how is eternal torture justice in any sense of the word?

 

He is also bound by logic and by doing moral actions, so how does that make him any less than God in your estimation? Can God bake an omelet that's so hot even God can't eat it?

 

Did you know that Hitler was born out of wedlock and that it was strongly believed, even by him, that his father was a Jew? Did you also know that Hitler based his views of the Jews on scientifically established convictions that he developed while in Vienna? Do you know that it was Nietzsche who called on German youth to become Übermenschen (supermen), and this was the basis of Aryan beliefs? Hitler was a frequent visitor to the Nietzsche museum, having his picture taken staring in rapture at his image. The term, "Lords of the Earth" which appears a number of times in Mein Kampf is derived from Nietzsche's thinking and writing. Yes, Hitler was raised Catholic in his youth and then did everything that he could to destroy the church in his adulthood. So, say what you will, Hitler was more of a Nietzchean than a Christian.

 

Now, regarding your statement about logic. Sure, God is bound by logic because that is part of his immutable nature. Logic doesn't make sense apart from the existence of God, so thanks for bringing that up. If you don't agree, could you please explain the basis of logic? And, unacceptable answers would include: it just exists, or it has to exist, or it is part of nature. These would all be either false answers or answers in need of explanation themselves.

[LNC]

The objective basis is we have to live with each other. Now answer Shan's question.

Sorry, that just begs the question of "why do we have to live with each other?" That is not an objective basis, so I am not ready to discuss Shan's opinions on morality.

[LNC]

LNC,

 

Faith (religious) is belief that does not require evidence or proof. Normal faith is based upon the ability to verify it objectively. Your religious belief is based upon reason rather than faith as you mentioned faith as it is used everyday as opposed to religious faith.

 

Also, you ignore that the basis of morality has been stated as being objective in previous posts.

 

OK, so when you put your faith in an airline to fly you to some destination, it doesn't matter whether that airline is reputable? I mean, you are putting your faith in that airline, so surely you don't need evidence that they can get you there safely. I didn't know that there were different categories of faith. Can you let me know which school of philosophy teaches such distinctions?

 

I didn't ignore those attempts at explanations, I have shown them to be faulty explanations. Stating and proving are two different things.

[LNC]

Also, you ignore that the basis of morality has been stated as being objective in previous posts.

Because he doesn't want answer. He doesn't want to know. He only wants to tell others what they should believe. He's on an ego-trip, and nothing can bring him back from the intoxicating drug of self-absorption. That's what Religion does to people.

 

He also ignored your post about god as being the source of morality. Yes, he sure doesn't want to answer. I think he's overwhelmed!

 

Nope, just taking these posts in order. Sorry, if it takes me some time. There are many of you posting and only one of me and I don't live on this site, only visit when I have time.

[freeday]

LNC,

 

What ever the reason for not answering the question you may have, you are facing Eurhyphro's Dilemma. Is the good good because God loves it (or does it). Or does God love and do the good because it is the good that is intrinsic.

 

If it is the former, then the good is arbitrary based on the whim of God at the moment. Thus killing babies could be good or bad depending on the mood of God. This means that the good is not absolute, objective and unchanging. This is the picture of Bible God according to the writings. I call this the great Mafia Don in the Sky.

 

If God loves and does the good because it is good then God does not rule. The good rules and God must subject himself to it. In this case if it is bad for you to kill babies, then it is bad for God to kill babies, and if it is good for God to kill babies, then it is good for you to kill babies.

 

This is a question that theists have answered long ago. Euthyphro is a faulty dilemma in that God neither merely commands that which is good nor is subject to some sort of good outside of himself. The good is defined by God's immutable and eternal nature, as I have explained to other posters on this site. God's commands are a reflection of that eternal and immutable nature so they are not arbitrary in nature, nor are they reflective of some reality outside of him, for if that were the case, then that would be God. I hope that is clear to you, feel free to ask questions if you have them.

 

this is not clear and I assume I believe what you believe. I think...

 

Can you separate commands and nature as you are supposing. A virtuous God would have virtuous commands I would think. I feel this resolves the problem simply in my opinion.

[nightflight]

Did you know that Hitler was born out of wedlock and that it was strongly believed, even by him, that his father was a Jew? Did you also know that Hitler based his views of the Jews on scientifically established convictions that he developed while in Vienna? Do you know that it was Nietzsche who called on German youth to become Übermenschen (supermen), and this was the basis of Aryan beliefs? Hitler was a frequent visitor to the Nietzsche museum, having his picture taken staring in rapture at his image. The term, "Lords of the Earth" which appears a number of times in Mein Kampf is derived from Nietzsche's thinking and writing. Yes, Hitler was raised Catholic in his youth and then did everything that he could to destroy the church in his adulthood. So, say what you will, Hitler was more of a Nietzchean than a Christian.

 

Hitler was one man. The horror of Nazi Germany was that Hitler was able to easily tap into an already present anti-Semitism, an anti-Semitism that had existed for centuries; an anti-Semitism that has its roots in the New Testament.

[pitchu]

That does not follow. We can have both a sin nature and be free agents. Having a sin nature just means that we have an inclination toward sin, not that we are bound to act according to that inclination.

 

So you're saying that God creates the game, creates the rules, then hands his "creations" loaded dice.

 

In a casino, this God would be arrested.