There Is No God

[Shyone]

Like you said, we don't know what dark matter or dark energy is (which btw are two different things), so how can we say that there won't be this or that if A or B? We don't know enough to make absolute statements about how it works.

Just to add a couple of cents:

 

We are just learning about "dark matter" and "dark energy", but there are clearly some other things about intergalactic space that are "different" from what we experience in galaxies (and galaxy clusters). The universe is expanding, but that may be a property of empty space. It might actually be due to energy - and if there is energy, there is the potential for mass (according to that equation...).

 

Or the expansion might create energy by stretching space - which might create mass.

 

One thing is clear however. The expansion and/or inflation of the universe is not some byproduct of "the big bang." It is an intrinsic property that may have consequences that are not currently known. I think that many people assume that the expansion is due to momentum from an "explosion", but that is grossly inaccurate.

[Legion]

Come, Mister tally man, tally me banana

Daylight come and me wan' go home

[Ouroboros]

We are just learning about "dark matter" and "dark energy", but there are clearly some other things about intergalactic space that are "different" from what we experience in galaxies (and galaxy clusters). The universe is expanding, but that may be a property of empty space. It might actually be due to energy - and if there is energy, there is the potential for mass (according to that equation...).

This is what one astronomer explained it to me:

 

The Milky Way galaxy has certain observable phenomenon. One is that we can calculate the visible mass to a fairly decent approximation. But the problem is that the spin, speed of the outermost star systems, and more, indicate that the total mass in our galaxy is many, many times greater than the visible mass. Hence there is hidden mass/matter in space. And it accounts for much more of the total mass than anything else we can see. Hence, dark matter.

 

On the other hand, we have a Universe which is expanding in an increasing speed, so there's an enormous amount of energy we don't know where it comes from. It overcomes all the visible mass and all this new dark matter mass, so there must be friggin' lot of it.

 

Or the expansion might create energy by stretching space - which might create mass.

 

One thing is clear however. The expansion and/or inflation of the universe is not some byproduct of "the big bang." It is an intrinsic property that may have consequences that are not currently known. I think that many people assume that the expansion is due to momentum from an "explosion", but that is grossly inaccurate.

That's right. The term Big Bang is a misnomer, it wasn't a bang, it wasn't an explosion, it was an inflation of the actual fabric of space. It was a "stretching" of space, and expanding at a speed far greater than the speed of light. The funny thing is, space itself can actually move faster than speed of light, because the dependency is that light can only travel at a certain speed within space (and can only exist within space), while space exists and expands without any dependency of light.

 

In a sense, the Fabric of Space is God.

[Legion]

Time is an illusion. So is math.

Well I do suspect that time is more complex than people typically give it credit. However I don't see how it can be argued that mathematics is an illusion. Math is a language. And I am only truly certain, beyond any shadow of doubt, of two things. We exist and language is a part of us. Cogitimus ergo sumus. Lingua est a secui nostrum.

[Legion]

In a sense, the Fabric of Space is God.

And the fabric of matter-space-time is a pattern of entailment. Therefore entailment is God.

[Ouroboros]

In a sense, the Fabric of Space is God.

And the fabric of matter-space-time is a pattern of entailment. Therefore entailment is God.

Very good. God as the infinite set of reality, a necessary condition for our existence.

[J.W.]

The main point here is-

 

There is no 'Real' evidence for God. I am going to grant a grace [i believe undeserved] and say there is no evidence for the contrary.

 

So let me ask you Christians, if there is no proof for or against, and I have demonstrated a possibility that everything has just existed in a cycle, why would you pick God?

 

Is it Pascals Wager?

 

Why 'if no proof exists' either way- would you choose to believe?

 

I don't get it. I really don't. I would think that if the evidence against God was shown to someone they would choose the real. Are there really 'ignorance is bliss' people out there?

[LNC]

Im not assuming an end. Things need to survive to have a prolonged effect. The people who survive the longest will have the greatest effect. The people that do things that increase survival will survive the longest. Society helps survival. Certain actions help society and therefore survival. Certain actions are a detriment to society and therefore survival. This fits nicely with Darwin and was based off of Evolutionary psychology. It will work that way. Society will punish what is a detriment to society because society increases survival so we up hold society by natural selection.

 

What is the effect and why is it necessary or good? For whom is it good and how do you know? By what standard are you measuring whether the effect is good or bad? Why do entities need to survive? You are assuming all of these ideas without giving reason. You cannot simply say, "well, who wouldn't want to survive, as that is begging the question." If there is no ultimate purpose to life then survival is merely an accidental happenstance, not something that has ultimate meaning or value. If we are mere accidental byproducts of natural interactions, then what is the difference if we disappear off the face of the earth? You must also define society. Which society? Who determines which society will punish and why?

 

It is a gross exaggeration to credit Christianity for all civility. Society was around before Christianity [Pharaoh let my people go]. Society can not exist without some form of civility even if it looks different than today. It has to be beneficial to survival or it would just die off.

 

I never credited Christianity for all civility. I am simply saying that without an objective grounding for morality, there is no reason for a society to live by an objective moral code or to punish those who don't. If morality is subjective, it will ultimately be those with the money and guns who rule the weak. Who determines what is civil and why should a person or a group adhere to these rules if he/she or they believe that their survival is better served by keeping different rules from the particular society in which they live? There is no oughtness to your system as there is no ultimate telos beyond survival and each person can determine what is best for his and his family's survival it seems. Beyond that, why should he or she care if they think that they can get along by their own rules?

 

I am more describing a cause and effect. I am not professing what is right. Im saying what works. Christianity is concerned with "what is right". Im talking about what increases survival.

 

On marriage. The average relationship is 4 years. That is long enough for the child to be old enough for the woman to be self reliant. I would go one step furtherer and say most breakups happen at 4-5 years due to an evolutionary drive. The couple splits to procreate with different genes to offset the possibility that their partners genes are unknowingly defective. So the person is wired to leave at the right time [when their child is old enough to be taken care of by one parent] and repeats the pattern has an advantage in finding good genes. That is just evolution though. Society has an effect because the kid with the most stable family life will have an advantage. So you see.. it is influenced by two seperate things society and survival. They are related but different. Society evolves for the stability of society, and people evolve for survival.

 

But you cannot foresee ultimate effects of temporal events. None of us has an understanding of what our present day actions will mean to the future. So, we cannot make rules that will lead to the ultimate survival of the species as an end since we don't know for sure whether our rules will have that effect.

 

Studies have shown that children raised in single parent households do not fair as well as children raised in stable two parent households. Yet, we see the continuing breakdown of the family and laws that are amenable to that end. I would ask you for statistics to show that people divorce to spread the gene pool. That seems like a rather ad hoc explanation and I doubt that you will be able to produce more than anecdotal information to back up that claim. Society doesn't effect a kid from a stable family, the parents do. So, if that is what you mean by society, then you have simply tried to form a definition to back up your claim, but instead you have diluted the definition to become meaningless to prove anything that you claim. In that case, every family unit would count as a society and would then be able to make its own rules for survival. Chaos would then ensue.

 

That is one thing that I find troubling with evolutionary explanations for morality, they are based on anecdotal information and become meaningless in the end by having amorphic definitions to attempt to prove whatever needs to be proved, yet proving nothing in the end because of that amorphous nature.

 

LNC

[Guest Valk0010]

Our existence and are survival are of the upmost importance, its in our nature, to desire survival. We would have never gotten here, without that instinct.

[LNC]

There is nothing metaphysical about Hypotheses. An educated and informed guess that ties into , compliments, and is supported by science is vastly superior to religious doctrine. Science doesn't really say that the universe comes from nothing.

 

As explained earlier. Entropy is not a law that applies on the scale of the universe. It only applies when you are talking about a particular fuel. Burning coal, for example, is going from the high energy state to low, but--- Coal is just stored solar energy from dead plant matter, and solar energy is renewable because it ultimately comes from the attraction of matter which is an innate property of matter [particles], and those particles have always been. They may have not always been organized into the fashion to see today, but they have always existed.

 

You are building a straw man; I never claimed that hypothesis is metaphysical. What I said is that to make claims of ontology is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one. If the universe had a beginning as the most defensible scientific theories assert, then science does not speak to the ultimate origin of the universe as physical laws too came into existence with the universe and the study of them later. So, science really has nothing to say about from where matter, space and time came, only what has happened to it since it came into existence (given Planck time as a boundary). Paul Davies from Arizona State University says that there are many scientific reasons that a past-infinite universe is an unsound hypothesis, one of which is that we should be in a cold, lifeless universe by now.

 

Where do you get the idea that entropy doesn't apply to the universe? That seems to be special pleading with no supporting evidence. What other laws of physics do you claim do not apply to the universe as a whole? Would you claim that the four fundamental laws don't apply to the universe as a whole either? If that is the case, then you can claim whatever you want about the universe. The fact is that entropy applies to the whole just as it does to the parts and you are just making that assertion up as you go along.

 

You claim that coal is stored solar energy, which is true and that that energy is renewable, which is technically false as the coal, once burned is not renewable, it is spent. Yes, the process goes on, but the Sun itself has a limited lifespan and will one day become a red giant, consume the earth and then collapse into a white dwarf, eventually cooling completely. That is entropy at work and it is at work all over the universe and on the universe itself.

 

You also assert that matter has always been, but then that defies both logic and science as I have already stated. Energy itself is not renewable, it goes from a usable to an unusable state and once it is all spent it is all spent. There is a finite amount of usable energy and given infinite time, as you claim, it should all be spent by now, yet, here we are. You also didn't address the logical problem of crossing an actually infinite series of events to arrive at today. How long should that take? An infinite amount of time. Yet, we are at a temporal event in time, and time continues, therefore, we have not crossed an infinite amount of time or an infinite series of events. That is the logical contradiction that you must address if you are to hold that matter has always existed.

 

LNC

[J.W.]

What is the effect and why is it necessary or good? For whom is it good and how do you know? By what standard are you measuring whether the effect is good or bad? Why do entities need to survive? You are assuming all of these ideas without giving reason. You cannot simply say, "well, who wouldn't want to survive, as that is begging the question." If there is no ultimate purpose to life then survival is merely an accidental happenstance, not something that has ultimate meaning or value. If we are mere accidental byproducts of natural interactions, then what is the difference if we disappear off the face of the earth? You must also define society. Which society? Who determines which society will punish and why?

 

We are programmed via natural selection to survive LNC. Nature doesn't care if we disappear off the face of the earth [that explains the holocaust doesn't it?]. Society is civilization and natural selection and popularity will determine what is allowed. Sure there are leaders and kings but if they are bad enough they will be overthrown [natural selection]. Civilization exists because it helps humans survive and therefore most people live in civilization. Some still live isolated in the rain forrest-- and some are still cannibals. How can God explain that? What is objectively moral about that?

 

 

I never credited Christianity for all civility. I am simply saying that without an objective grounding for morality, there is no reason for a society to live by an objective moral code or to punish those who don't. If morality is subjective, it will ultimately be those with the money and guns who rule the weak. Who determines what is civil and why should a person or a group adhere to these rules if he/she or they believe that their survival is better served by keeping different rules from the particular society in which they live? There is no oughtness to your system as there is no ultimate telos beyond survival and each person can determine what is best for his and his family's survival it seems. Beyond that, why should he or she care if they think that they can get along by their own rules?

 

Your right there is no "reason". Society exists because it increases survival. The things banned reduce survival [think about it]. It is might makes right, but the ultimate right is in numbers. People can overthrow a government if they want to bad enough.

 

Your right there is no oughtness by an abstract reason, but there is an oughtness prescribed by society [a more practical one].

 

We do think we can get along by our own rules. Prisons are full. People get DUI's everyday, there is: rape, murder, incest, polygamy, drugs, pissing in the bosses coffee pot, jerking off in public, and all sorts of nonsense.

 

 

But you cannot foresee ultimate effects of temporal events. None of us has an understanding of what our present day actions will mean to the future. So, we cannot make rules that will lead to the ultimate survival of the species as an end since we don't know for sure whether our rules will have that effect

.

 

We don't have to because natural selection does. If you break the rules you get killed or land in jail and can't mate. On the other hand if society does not have enough rules it just falls apart, and too many will lead to the same. People keep forming society because it helps survival. ei they make towns, cities, countries

 

Studies have shown that children raised in single parent households do not fair as well as children raised in stable two parent households. Yet, we see the continuing breakdown of the family and laws that are amenable to that end. I would ask you for statistics to show that people divorce to spread the gene pool. That seems like a rather ad hoc explanation and I doubt that you will be able to produce more than anecdotal information to back up that claim. Society doesn't effect a kid from a stable family, the parents do. So, if that is what you mean by society, then you have simply tried to form a definition to back up your claim, but instead you have diluted the definition to become meaningless to prove anything that you claim. In that case, every family unit would count as a society and would then be able to make its own rules for survival. Chaos would then ensue.

 

I said childred raised in single house holds do not fair as well didn't I? That's true, but man was not in cities for the first 195,000 years-- even longer if you go back to Lucy.. so it is a left over trait of evolution that pushes to break up relationships at 4-5 years not society. Im not going to write a research paper in here but a quick google will verify relationships averaging about 4-5 years.

 

The only reason a kid needs a stable family is modern society.. They dont do as well in school and career... not the same as hunter gatherer which is about the tribe, and the tribe will pick up the slack on an older boy-- the kid still needed a mom to breast feed him to another person being able to care for the kid

 

That is one thing that I find troubling with evolutionary explanations for morality, they are based on anecdotal information and become meaningless in the end by having amorphic definitions to attempt to prove whatever needs to be proved, yet proving nothing in the end because of that amorphous nature.

 

LNC

 

Why must it have a meaning? The universe doesn't have a meaning. Do you mean that science can't give you a ultimate purpose for your life so you wont accept it?

[LNC]

Well the idea of a god existing faces bigger challenges than The Big Bang/Crunch theory, because it is not scientific. I could prove the Big Bang theory easier than I could prove a god exists, despite it's challenges. Although I must admit, JW could have phrased his opening statement in which to challenge you better. However, you would have better luck proving there was a Big Bang than proving a god exists. Therefore, my first statement of "I've got nothing" still stands, because no one has anything in which to prove a god, any god, exists and that is the whole point of the thread. He is asking for evidence that your god or any other god exists. In fact, I could prove 0 faster than I could prove a god. Even a mathematician could prove 0 exists easier than s/he could prove a god exists.

 

Not all knowledge comes to us via science. However, some believe that the God hypothesis can be studied scientifically (Dawkins, Stenger, etc.) I'm not sure that I agree with them in the way that they state it; however, we can make inferences to the best explanation (abductive reasoning) to come to the conclusion that God is the best explanation for certain phenomena that cannot be explained naturally. For example, if all matter, space and time came into existence approximately 13.7 billion years ago, then it is not the result of a natural event as that would argue for self-causation which is logically untenable. If we cannot explain the fine-tuning of the universe via law or chance, then it is logical to conclude design. If morality has no objective basis apart from God (which I have never seen anyone be able to show me is possible) then morality is either subjective or illusory. Many naturalists argue for the latter, but then that would mean that rape, murder, child abuse, racism, et.al. would not really be wrong, but only wrong as an illusion created by our brains. These are just three reasons that I think lead to a logical inference that God exists. However, J.W. makes the positive claim that God doesn't exist, so it is up to him to provide positive evidence in support of his assertion, which I have yet to see from him or anyone else. So, maybe you would like to put forth your evidence if this is an assertion that you hold to be true.

 

So, I disagree with your assertion as it is based upon a faulty foundation of knowledge and epistemology.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I did present a theory that did not require god, the first cause, or a magical it out there.

 

Stated again Mass and attraction period. Thats all there is, and I don't think matter can be destroyed. It probably depends on what you call matter-- but I contend that there is a physical substance that can not be destroyed. You can mash it into hot plasma, or a liquid like substance, you can change its shape, you can compress it to a certain point, BUT-- it never, never, never goes away and has always been there. Before you refute that I would like to ask you to prove to me that God has always been there. I say matter and attraction [really simple]. You say a very complex, immaterial, all powerful, all good, all knowing God that has always been there. Occams Razor that-- mine is much simpler and makes sense.

 

By the way I am a Nihilist. Not that a label would disprove a theory as you later insinuate. My philosophy has nothing to do with whether the theory is correct.

 

That does not prove that God does not exist. It only proves, if successful (which I argue it is not) that the universe didn't have a cause. However, if there is no mass then there can be no attraction and the current understanding of Big Bang cosmology is that matter, space and time came into existence in the singularity, there would have been nothing apart from that to attract or expand as there was no thing causally prior to the singularity/Big Bang event. So your understanding of the laws of physics are correct once there is a universe, but obviously, if there is no universe, there are no laws as there is nothing for them to govern. You ask me to prove to you that God has always existed and yet, you have given no proof for matter always existing, while I have given a number of reasons that that concept defies both physics and logic. If God exists, then it is axiomatic that he would be eternal, otherwise, he would not be God. What do you mean that God is complex? God is immaterial and therefore without parts and therefore, not complex as you would assert. God is a single mind, not made up of parts.

 

I don't say that a label proves a theory to be true or false, it is just a way of categorizing and understanding a set of beliefs or a set of data. I think that you are being logically honest and consistent in calling yourself a nihilist as it is the logical outworking of naturalism, I believe.

 

LNC

[Guest Valk0010]

Who says we can't ever solve it. Even if your right, and based off our current knowledge of physics, a god is needed, you only get a first cause. How in the blue hell do you get from being a deist to a theist. I can't see it.

 

I don't see things like survival to be objective. Also LNC, you have yet to explain how, if there is a objective morality in the since that your fighting to prove, then how is it, that cultural, and in some cases view morality different, or how different things can bother one persons conscience and some others not be bothered by the same thing.

[LNC]

If something did not exist forever than it has to come from nothing. That is not proven anywhere

 

That is a non-sequitur. If something material did not exist forever, it could have come from something immaterial, there is nothing logically contradictory about that conclusion.

 

So lets go over the possibilities [feel free to add some]

 

1. A very complex God existed forever and created everything

2. Matter existed forever and goes through cycles of expand and contract

3. Stuff just appears and disappears all over the place

 

 

Um number 2

 

1. There is nothing that says that God must be complex. Philosophers have argued that God is a mind and minds are not complex. It is important not to confuse the mind with what the mind knows, they are two different ideas.

2. Violates both physics and logic as I have demonstrated elsewhere.

3. Logically untenable and counter to our empirical understanding of how the universe works.

 

Therefore, #1 is the only one that doesn't violate either logic or physics and is the most likely cause.

 

LNC

[J.W.]

However, J.W. makes the positive claim that God doesn't exist, so it is up to him to provide positive evidence in support of his assertion, which I have yet to see from him or anyone else. So, maybe you would like to put forth your evidence if this is an assertion that you hold to be true.

 

So, I disagree with your assertion as it is based upon a faulty foundation of knowledge and epistemology.

 

LNC

 

I have plenty of physical support on different aspects of what I have presented [not the theory as a whole]. My support is backed by the science, but my hypothesis is not. That said I have shown positive "proof" of what Im talking about. Objective morality is not backed by science, temporarily suspending the laws of nature is not backed by science. No proof what so ever to support a God is backed by the scientific community.

 

Where is the proof for God? I will not consider a God until there is a reason to believe in one. It has to be based on facts-- not fallacies, not feelings, not something "beyond our normal sensibility". It has to make sense. What is the proof? An inconsistent bible/torah/koran?

 

Even in the philosophy realm theist have serious problems. Ever hear of the "Problem of Evil"? Its called a problem because it is yet to be solved. Its not even sound philosophy.

 

The "object" morality you see is a collective mental projection from society. It also happens to promote survival.. That's all it is.

Mine explains why cannibals eat people and consider it okay.. "it promotes survival". Yet society can't live with cannibalism because thats anarchy so society bans it. So this also makes sense in the context I said it. Since there is no "objective" morality it will change slightly between cultures--- but eventually natural selection will promote the society with the best rules and those rules will usurp everyone--- eventually--- we are not there yet

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

1. There is nothing that says that God must be complex. Philosophers have argued that God is a mind and minds are not complex. It is important not to confuse the mind with what the mind knows, they are two different ideas.

2. Violates both physics and logic as I have demonstrated elsewhere.

3. Logically untenable and counter to our empirical understanding of how the universe works.

 

Therefore, #1 is the only one that doesn't violate either logic or physics and is the most likely cause.

 

LNC

 

1.What about what the mind is capable off, God is capable of way more then a mind of our sort. Larger ability can, and in the case of god, would, equal complexity. Also how many minds, are divided into three parts yet are one.

 

2. I don't know enough about physics to really be of service on this one so I will wait for JW.

 

3. Its a absurd idea in itself, but compared to the idea of a theistic god, not much more absurd.

[LNC]

Time is an illusion. So is math. There is no perfect number 1's just floating around everywhere. It is an abstract concept created to define and measure this world. You need something unmovable and unchangable to measure against.. and so the magic math. It is very useful, practical, and repeatable-- it doesn't mean its real. Abstract is not real. Our money moves the world [seems real], but its just paper and if enough of it is printed its worthless. It's only real because we agree to honor it. The same with time-- its practical and used to track previous movement but it is abstract. You will never be able to go back in time, because there is only now.

 

I think you are conflating abstract ideas with illusions and they are two different ideas. If you believe that numbers are illusions, then science must be as well as science is dependent upon numbers being more than illusion. How does one measure anything with an illusory concept? It cannot be done. Numbers and time are abstract concepts, but they are taking real events and phenomena and reducing them to concepts. Maybe you can do more reading on the idea of abstract concepts to better understand them. You also seem to be quibbling with Plato's theory of forms as ideal states of the particulars; however, as a nihilist and a naturalist, I don't find it surprising that you have a problem with this concept as it really doesn't fit within your worldview. However, to call time and numbers illusion seems to be a different issue and creates many different problems for your worldview as it invalidates science altogether. Is that really what you want to accomplish?

 

So, if you abandon time, how do you measure the passage of events? If you toss out numbers as illusion, how do you measure anything? Do you claim that past events are illusion as well since they no longer exist? If that is the case, then this post is an illusion as it was written in a time that no longer exists and is itself an illusion.

 

LNC

[J.W.]

Time is an illusion. So is math. There is no perfect number 1's just floating around everywhere. It is an abstract concept created to define and measure this world. You need something unmovable and unchangable to measure against.. and so the magic math. It is very useful, practical, and repeatable-- it doesn't mean its real. Abstract is not real. Our money moves the world [seems real], but its just paper and if enough of it is printed its worthless. It's only real because we agree to honor it. The same with time-- its practical and used to track previous movement but it is abstract. You will never be able to go back in time, because there is only now.

 

I think you are conflating abstract ideas with illusions and they are two different ideas. If you believe that numbers are illusions, then science must be as well as science is dependent upon numbers being more than illusion. How does one measure anything with an illusory concept? It cannot be done. Numbers and time are abstract concepts, but they are taking real events and phenomena and reducing them to concepts. Maybe you can do more reading on the idea of abstract concepts to better understand them. You also seem to be quibbling with Plato's theory of forms as ideal states of the particulars; however, as a nihilist and a naturalist, I don't find it surprising that you have a problem with this concept as it really doesn't fit within your worldview. However, to call time and numbers illusion seems to be a different issue and creates many different problems for your worldview as it invalidates science altogether. Is that really what you want to accomplish?

 

So, if you abandon time, how do you measure the passage of events? If you toss out numbers as illusion, how do you measure anything? Do you claim that past events are illusion as well since they no longer exist? If that is the case, then this post is an illusion as it was written in a time that no longer exists and is itself an illusion.

 

LNC

 

Math is a description of a "real" process. Math is not "real" it is a description. There I said it frontwards and backwards for you.

I said it was practical because it helps us measure real things, and those calculations show us where or how to cut etc... but math is not the reality. The reality is matter.

In fact we dont have a perfect anything.. its always into a certain standard of + or -

 

Every ruler is microscopically a different length... thats how I say that.. even a ruler is not absolute just close to it

 

--------------------------------------------------------

I forgot to mention time. Time is a description of movement.. Same Idea as math basically

[Mriana]

however, we can make inferences to the best explanation (abductive reasoning) to come to the conclusion that God is the best explanation for certain phenomena that cannot be explained naturally.

 

We can? How do you come to that conclusion that we can all come to the conclusion that a god is the best explanation? Why do you come to that conclusion? What special knowledge and empirical testing do you have that we don't?

 

 

For example, if all matter, space and time came into existence approximately 13.7 billion years ago, then it is not the result of a natural event as that would argue for self-causation which is logically untenable. If we cannot explain the fine-tuning of the universe via law or chance, then it is logical to conclude design.

 

Oh so, if we don't know, then God did it? You can't just say, "I don't know"? That is not the logical conclusion. The logical conclusion is that we do not have the answer yet. We don't know.

 

 

If morality has no objective basis apart from God (which I have never seen anyone be able to show me is possible) then morality is either subjective or illusory.

 

On the contrary. It is hardly illusory. If medical science says, if you don't use condoms and practice safer sex, then you could spread disease or catch a disease, then it makes logical sense that if you care about the person you are with you practice safer sex. That is a form of morality based on knowledge- objective knowledge that comes from science. There is nothing subjective about the moral conclusion of the subject matter.

 

 

Many naturalists argue for the latter, but then that would mean that rape, murder, child abuse, racism, et.al. would not really be wrong, but only wrong as an illusion created by our brains.

 

NO! It would NOT. It is wrong because it does harms to individuals and society as a whole. You know what, I dare you to take this crap to Matt of The Atheist Experience. They have a live call-in show in which you can pose exactly this to him and his co-host: http://www.atheist-experience.com/ Just call during the show time, you don't have to see it on TV in order to call. July 11 4:30 to 6 CST I'm sure you will make a very entertaining addition to the show.

 

So, maybe you would like to put forth your evidence if this is an assertion that you hold to be true.

 

I do not make his same assertion. I have a lack of a belief in a deity and do not believe there is a god, which is not the same as saying "there is no god". There is a difference between negative/weak (lack of a belief) and positive/strong (no god(s)) atheism, as well as agnostic atheist and atheist. See: http://www.strongatheism.net/faq/

http://www.atheist-community.org/faq/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

 

Agnostic atheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

 

Now, while I do not believe in the god of religion- any religion (atheism), that is not to say that I don't believe science might one day find something (agnosticism), but it will not be what you presume to be a god if they do (gnosis). I do not believe your concept exists and I do not have such a concept myself. The idea of a god is a human concept and when you ascribe characteristics to what you think is God, all you are doing is describing your concept, which JW has shown is just your concept and scientifically doesn't actually exist. A simpler way of putting all of that is "To describe the Tao is to not describe it all". Most people who have a god concept are very much like the blind men and the elephant, IMO, only seeing a piece of the whole and calling it what they want out of superstition. They have no clue what the whole is. However, I am not saying I know, because science or we as humans doesn't/don't have all the answers. Which is a fancy way of saying, "I don't know and neither do you."

 

So, I disagree with your assertion as it is based upon a faulty foundation of knowledge and epistemology.

 

LNC

 

Faulty foundation of knowledge and epistemology? So, I guess the Bible is the inerrant word of God to you? I think you need to start over with your education, because it seems you missed a lot.

 

Let me add, my first statement of "I've got nothing" in reference to JW original post, still stands. I don't have anything to prove a deity exists and neither do you.

[Guest I Love Dog]

If something did not exist forever than it has to come from nothing. That is not proven anywhere

 

That is a non-sequitur. If something material did not exist forever, it could have come from something immaterial, there is nothing logically contradictory about that conclusion.

 

So lets go over the possibilities [feel free to add some]

 

1. A very complex God existed forever and created everything

2. Matter existed forever and goes through cycles of expand and contract

3. Stuff just appears and disappears all over the place

 

 

Um number 2

 

1. There is nothing that says that God must be complex. Philosophers have argued that God is a mind and minds are not complex. It is important not to confuse the mind with what the mind knows, they are two different ideas.

2. Violates both physics and logic as I have demonstrated elsewhere.

3. Logically untenable and counter to our empirical understanding of how the universe works.

 

Therefore, #1 is the only one that doesn't violate either logic or physics and is the most likely cause.

 

LNC

 

So which god do you feel is logical? Perhaps you feel that they all are? There have been 30,000 gods named/invented in the past 6000 years.

 

None of them have ever demonstrated that they have been the only one and only Yahweh(at least in the minds of donkey nomads) DEMANDED that he be the only one.

 

I think if it's logical that there is one god then it's logical that there are thousands, perhaps millions. The Hindus think there are millions, perhaps they are correct. It would certainly make managing the Universe and all that it contains a lot easier for millions of gods to control it.

 

There's no evidence that there is one god, so if we accept without evidence that there is a god then we can also accept without evidence that there are millions, perhaps billions.

[Guest Valk0010]

One issue with the arguments for god, is that, they don't prove one particular kind of god. And you can't really prove with one. Because a person could say ohh the devil or whatever is tricking the false religions people or something like that and you can't really prove otherwise. There are also other reasons like. Umm we can't determine anything about the god, these argument supposedly proves. We can only wither away options, even then its a problem, because how can you prove a totally supernatural thing.

[Legion]

LNC are you still at it here? Damn.

 

Do you still think there is coherent meaning in the statement... "prior to the existence of time"?

[Crazy Donna]

Studies have shown that children raised in single parent households do not fair as well as children raised in stable two parent households. Yet, we see the continuing breakdown of the family and laws that are amenable to that end. I would ask you for statistics to show that people divorce to spread the gene pool. That seems like a rather ad hoc explanation and I doubt that you will be able to produce more than anecdotal information to back up that claim. Society doesn't effect a kid from a stable family, the parents do. So, if that is what you mean by society, then you have simply tried to form a definition to back up your claim, but instead you have diluted the definition to become meaningless to prove anything that you claim. In that case, every family unit would count as a society and would then be able to make its own rules for survival. Chaos would then ensue.

 

That is one thing that I find troubling with evolutionary explanations for morality, they are based on anecdotal information and become meaningless in the end by having amorphic definitions to attempt to prove whatever needs to be proved, yet proving nothing in the end because of that amorphous nature.

 

LNC

You obviously don't watch the news, LNC. Apparently kids from two parent homes where the parents are a LESBIAN COUPLE do FAR BETTER. When I find the news story online, I'll post it for you. I think it's because the kids are actually wanted, not the result of a sexual union between two horny christians who hooked up with the first person they were attracted to, thinking it was 'gods will' when it was really just their own hormones, and rooted like bunnies without contraception, because for some christians, contraception is just evil, hmkay?

 

The thing that offends me the most, LNC, about you, is that you seem to think that without your precious god, people become unable to make rational decisions about right and wrong. This is ludicrous. There are millions of human beings without your evil, baby killing god, who live perfectly moral, compassionate lives. Like the Chinese. Heard of the Chinese? Want me to find it on a map for you?

 

I find it downright patronising and profoundly offensive to be told that evolutionary theories of morality are faulty. They are what got us here in the first place. They predate your stupid fake god. You're just too willfully ignorant to recognise or acknowledge it. Your ten commandments are from cultures that predate the Israelite culture, or borrowed from neighboring cultures.

 

All cultures have social rules. Most cultures (I am not an expert, but I'm prepared to say that most cultures on Earth that have existed in the last ten thousand years) have explicit taboos about killing innocent people. Even the most primitive cultures, untouched by your precious, woman hating god, has taboos about behaviour that would be destructive to their communities. The Aboriginals of Australia, whose culture remained unchanged for twenty thousand years, had elaborate laws about murder, how to interact with others, even down to sophisticated languages to be used in certain ceremonial taboo situations. If someone was killed unjustly, then that killing was punished according to law. It was not just a random slaughter. These people lived in family groups, and intermarried and traded with other family groups. Transgressions of laws were punished. Laws were made and agreed upon by early humans because they facilitated the functioning of society. All cultures have rules, no matter how rudimentary. Our concept of right and wrong probably predates language.

 

Your claims do not stand up to statistics produced by the scientific community. People do not divorce to spread the gene pool. People don't reproduce for that kind of reason. People reproduce because (1) they want to have sex or (2) they want to have kids. They don't do it with some grand plan of populating the world with genetically superior offspring. Relationships fail because of far more simple reasons. People just fall out of love, or change so much that they are no longer in love, or grow apart. While there is an underlying genetic push for people to mate with high quality partners, they don't usually go around doing this to the detriment of their relationships. Human beings tend to take commitments they make to others pretty seriously, which is why society, on the whole, finds someone who cheats on their partner to be untrustworthy and of low status. Humans regard this as a bad thing. Witness the outcry at Tiger Wood's behaviour. Human beings react like this because they recognise that such behaviour damages the family unit, regardless of their culture or religion. Human behaviour is complex. People have marital problems for all kinds of reasons. They don't just wake up one morning and over eggs Benedict say to each other "I think it's time to diversify the human gene pool, honey. Lets get a divorce." LNC, you know that is just unbelievably stupid. I also find it profoundly ignorant of you to claim that "society doesn't affect a kid from a stable family, the parents do." I know plenty of kids from unstable families who have gone on to do great things in their own right, and plenty of kids from stable families that have completely gone off the rails. Human behaviour is far more complex than you're making it out to be. You shouldn't go around advertising your stupidity and ignorance by making unsupported generalisations like this. It's quite embarrassing. Well, for you. For the rest of us it's slightly amusing, if not cringeworthy.

[J.W.]

 

Where do you get the idea that entropy doesn't apply to the universe? That seems to be special pleading with no supporting evidence. What other laws of physics do you claim do not apply to the universe as a whole? Would you claim that the four fundamental laws don't apply to the universe as a whole either? If that is the case, then you can claim whatever you want about the universe. The fact is that entropy applies to the whole just as it does to the parts and you are just making that assertion up as you go along.

 

You claim that coal is stored solar energy, which is true and that that energy is renewable, which is technically false as the coal, once burned is not renewable, it is spent.

 

I thought I better return to this one it seems to be frying your brain.

 

Entropy does not exist on the scale of the universe if you accept some of my assertions: 1) that matter existed forever 2) that attraction is a property of matter and is responsible for movement 3) that we cycle between big bang and bib crunch

 

If at anytime we go to big crunch all high stages of energy would be returned in compression of the whole universe, because energy comes from movement- movement from attraction- attraction from the matter itself.

 

Fire is heat released while molecules split apart, but all the atoms still exist. If the atoms still exist then the matter still exists, and if the matter still exist then the attraction still exists, and if attraction still exists that energy still exists. Energy never dies it only changes form, and that is how.

 

Perpetual machines can only exist if they dont have to fight any outside force. The entire collective universe does not fight an outside force-- only empty space... so the universe could be a perpetual machine because.. it doesn't fight and outside gravity, it doesn't fight out side friction, its energy can not be consumed because it is a property of matter-- and as I asserted matter exists forever.

 

You say there is a problem with time but there is only now. I told you that. Watch Spaceballs explain it.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvd3kaupZ60