God Exists Because There’s No Evidence

ARGUMENT FROM CAN’T-BE-A-RACIST
(1) Martin Luther King, Jr. believed in God.
(2) I don’t think you want to say Dr. King was a fool, do you?
(3) That’s what I thought.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

I have to admit, this one made me chuckle.

Soundlike Christian sillygisms to me.

Anyone see B. Russell’s orbiting teacup? I do believe.

@Niva Tuvia

The thing is, I’ve never found proof against a supreme being. Even in my days of atheism, I couldn’t find anything that truly proved a supreme being didn’t exist.

Of course not. It is impossible to definitively prove the non-existence of an entity. Any entity. In this, God is not special.

It baffled me that, if He did exist, he would let something like the Holocaust happen. Then I started to see. Two words: free will.

There are two big problems with the free-will escape hatch for Christians. One, according to the Bible, God has in the past used miracles to interfere (esp. to bring about events that he wished to transpire). If God is unchanging (which is an axiom of Christianity) and humans had free will then, it is hard to see how God couldn’t sling miracles to fix the situation now seeing how conditions are basically the same.

The second problem has to do with the relative value of freedom of will. Is it more important than thousands of people get to express their will than that millions get to continue to exist? This is a problematic notion, especially since those who die are also denied the ability to exercise will.

Depends what we mean by ‘God’, doesn’t it? Ask 10 people and you probably get 10 different opinions.

This is a real argument made to my mother by a guide at the Holy Land theme park, Orlando:

1) There’s a place in Jerusalem where we haven’t found any DNA.
2) Since Jesus rose from the dead, he didn’t leave any DNA.
3) Therefore we have found the tomb of Jesus.

Additional conclusions:
4) This proves Jesus rose from the dead.
5) God Exists.

When christians raise up a tsumani of words, like they always do, afterwards they have to pick up the fragment of their “God”.

Holy crap, I’m the dumbest person to post on this site… :/

Just had to post this one from the source, cos I’ve used it before.

ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

Neither have you tasted my jesus!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Tx5DBWhDLk

An instant classic!

Alex Gluggenshame’s mum walks in and catches him on the blogs again:

Mum: Alex! Didn’t I tell you to stop doing that? You never know what kind of weirdos are out there.

Alex: But mum …

Mum: But mum nothing. Off.

Alex: But mum – I reckon I can convert some of these atheists. They really think I’m smart, and they are REALLY dumb. I call them little one. He he – it’s so cool.

Mum: I don’t know Alex …

Alex: Yeah. They said if I know god exists, then show us your evidence. I told them yeah I’ve got evidence. Then they were like well show us then. And I was all like well god is self evident. Cool big word hey? I think they bought it.

Mum: Hmmm

Alex: Mum?

Mum: Yes Alex?

Alex: What’s evidence?

Mum: Ask your teacher on Monday. Your dinner is ready.

Alex: But I want to play troll some more …

Mum: Enough. Come and eat and you can play more tomorrow.

Alex: OK, but can I watch “Quantum of Solace” with Daniel Craig who, though atypical as a Bond, is Bond worthy.

Mum: Where the hell did you pick stuff like that? The internet no doubt. You’re way to young to watch movies like that.

Alex: Awwww …

Mum: And it’s too late and you are tired my clever young troll.

Alex: YAWN

Andrew N.P.:

“One can’t look at the mathematical beauty of the laws of physics and immediately conclude that the God Who was responsible for it all also took a special interest in the Jewish people back in the Bronze Age”

lol too good!! He did take a special interest didn’t he!

From another comment:

“This planet is such an infinitesimal grain of sand in a universe so large, that your poor education deprived brain can’t reconcile it. Yet, the atoms(people) on this grain of sand we call a planet want to claim that they KNOW the universe. IT IS ARROGANCE, utter disdainful arrogance” to think God took a special interest in the Jewish people back in the Bronze Age! :)

I really think many Evangelicals have a subconscious need to be persecuted as a validation of their faith. This Alex character is needling people hoping to spark anger and insults, so he can tell himself and others that he has “suffered for the name!”.

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/proof-that-god-exists-faq.htm

There is also no proof that God does not exist. So could I say that you are saying God Does Not Exist Because There’s No Evidence?

This is an argument that will go on forever. No side will ever be able to prove the other side wrong.

Regarding Alex: talk about feeding the troll.

“God is self-evident”

Fail.

We do not have a one world religion.
God is not self-evident.

Got anymore lies Alex?

Wait, I forgot who I was talking to, nvrmind.

“Further, if something did “create” the universe, then what created it?”

What else would have created it besides God?

For number 4: then what is your explanation for an objective moral standard?

It’s not hallucinations or wishful thinking. Things actually happen. The bodies of some saints ARE incorruptable. It’s not like we’re looking at the bodies having wishful thinking that they are. They actually are.

http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/020197/religion.htm
That’s my source for the cancer miracle.

Well, seriously, I don’t believe there is any such thing as “spirit”.

To be completely honest then, no one will ever know the truth until death comes to meet them. If we’re just chemicals sloshing around, then it won’t matter what one believes. So, basically, if I am in fact wrong, I will have lived a happier life than just about anyone I know while believing. IF it just so happens that I have no soul, spirit, or whatever, and my chemicals are just doing a happy dance in my brain making me feel good and that I have a purpose, then this whole controversy is kinda pointless. I’ll just be a carbon based thing breaking down in soil. Ok. So would you rather be “delusional”, live a good life, and die content, or be skeptical, atheist, and die still wondering if you did all this for nothing? But, on the other hand, that would be a good reason to do whatever I want, since there are no consequences. Atheism does seem to have it’s upsides.

“With that said, find the post, or posts of yours, where you have proven/illustrated that there exists an “objective moral Standard”, and that it comes from an invisible, conscious being, AKA, “God”. ”

– This has never been a topic of any of our mini-debates. And I can never prove/illustrate this to your satisfaction – since this isn’t something anyone could “prove with evidence”.

“Notwithstanding, you could illustrate, under the *pretense* that “Christianity” is Truth”(which I’ve granted you), by showing me, *in concept*, how morality comes from “God”. Yet, you’ve failed to do even this.”

- First, how can you grant “Christianity is truth” without granting a God Christians proclaim to be true?

If you grant a God Christians proclaim to be true, then you are granting that God created us in His divine spark, which therefore allows us to have a perception of morality and rationality (made in His image and likeness)

Therefore, I don’t have to prove that morality comes from God, since you already “granted” it.

“I’ve pointed out hypothetical senarios where “killing” is perfectly ethical, thus, it is not absolute. Neither the bible – nor any other religiously revealed “Truth” – lists EVERY possible senario where “killling” might be involved, along with the respective, corresponding “rulings”.”

– Your pointing out that in the bible we cannot ascertain objective morality, which I agree, and have always. I never claimed that we get our morality from the bible, nor have I ever argued that in the bible – we can see God’s objective morality.

“Thus, it is most certainly up to us humans to evaluate any given senario, and act accordingly. That, of course, is subjective; not “objective”.”

- Yes, we are subjectively evaluating what would constitute as being moral or immoral.

But there is a difference between subjectively trying to interpret an ‘objective reality’ and ’subjectively’ trying to interpret an already admitted ’subjective reality’. No matter how you try to defend the latter, if you follow it to its logical end, it is meaningless (it may be evolutionarily successful, but THATS IT.)

We can only guess and speculate using our own reasoning as to what constitutes a moral or immoral act. Christianity bypasses moral relativism by allowing us to position ourselves within the context of a divine personality who represents absolute righteousness.

Can you objectively and logically prove to me that torturing children for fun is an immoral act without appealing to an emotional argument? How could you objectively convince a sadist that his acts against children were wrong?

“We can only guess and speculate using our own reasoning as to what constitutes a moral or immoral act. Christianity bypasses moral relativism by allowing us to position ourselves within the context of a divine personality who represents absolute righteousness.”

Since you can only guess of the relativism of morality, there is no need of argument of the shifiting your position in the absolute of christianity in divinity.

Started a new thread – old one was getting confusing.

“That is a logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance.”

Please explain where you think the fallacy is.

boomSLANG,
God never say it, you’re wrong. The bible never say it, you’re wrong. Christianity never say it, you’re wrong. Jesus never say it, you’re wrong. My church never say it, you’re wrong. I never say it, you’re wrong, My friends never say it, you’re wrong,on an on…

Repeat

God never say it, you’re wrong. The bible never say it, you’re wrong. Christianity never say it, you’re wrong. Jesus never say it, you’re wrong. My church never say it, you’re wrong. I never say it, you’re wrong, My friends never say it, you’re wrong,on an on…

Repeat

God never say it, you’re wrong. The bible never say it, you’re wrong. Christianity never say it, you’re wrong. Jesus never say it, you’re wrong. My church never say it, you’re wrong. I never say it, you’re wrong, My friends never say it, you’re wrong,on an on…

I never say what you are repeating …

Do you mean a cobbled together 2000+ year old book with logical and moral inconsistencies left and right??? That evidence?

Haaaahahaahahaaahahahaa!

You’re like Joseph McCarthy, waving an empty folder around and telling us it’s full of evidence of god’s existence. Then, you either ignore the clamor of voices calling you out, or you go on the counter-offensive, throwing up straw men and knocking them down, a la Don Quixote. If I were Daniel, I’d ban you, because, in a lot of ways, you’re worse than Chris Fox.

Don’t respond to this creep Alexy Gravyhead, he has got nothing.
I say he is the unmentionable thing. You know the one that starts with T and ends with ROLL

Except that a sky scraper can be EMPIRICALLY observed, as long as the fact that we’ve empirically observed men building sky scrapers. Have you empirically observed God? If so, can you point me in that direction, because I’d love to have real, tangible evidence of God.

But, but but…what if the evidence is ineffable? Huh? Then you’d look pretty silly standing there. With all your “questions”.

I don’t know how you can make a great statement on gay marriage then post a comparsion between something that man made VS. something that occurs in nature. Please show your work and can’t use the bible as a reference.

Ok, I’m gonna try my best. Tell me if it helps you understand my thinking.
The guy that did’t think the construction workers existed thought that because he couldn’t see them. People think that God doesn’t exist because they can’t see Him. But we all know the construction workers exist because we can see their work (except for that poor guy). Why don’t people believe God exists when we can see His work? Did the Earth just magically appear?

This might be entirely stupid and has already been covered or something, I don’t know…but if we evolved from primates (I don’t doubt it – but), why are there still primates in the world? Why and how did our species separate so dramatically(and *when*)?

In what way does this prove your god did this. I could use the same words to claim one of the hundreds of gods though history are the creator. The only true way to prove your god is the real one is to have evidence that can’t be applied to any of the others.

We still have apelike traits (monkeys are different from apes). For instance- monkeys have tails. Do you have a tail? Guess what- neither do other apes!

What anti-evolution people fail to realize is that you can’t argue against the science if you haven’t read it. If I tried to tell you all about homologous protein structures and rates of DNA annealing between chimps and humans, would you have any idea what I’m talking about?

You can start by watching this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU&feature=channel_page

Next, check out this website:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Elemenope-

Well, said! Also, do you mind briefly explaining the problems with the prime mover/cause argument?

The biggest problem with the argument is that it is contradictory at a basic level. The premise “everything that exists must have a cause” conflicts with the conclusion “there is an uncaused cause”. None of the several versions of the cosmological argument get around this basic problem, in that they all assert a special pleading for the hypothetical first entity; namely, that it does not need a cause. There is no reason evident to us why this should be so; if everything of which we are aware has a cause, then there is no reason a hypothetical entity which created the universe would be any different in this respect.

A related problem arises when one tries to get around this one. One might argue that the prime mover is unlike other entities and we wouldn’t know it because we have no experience with un-caused entities. But the existence of an un-caused entity implies that it is possible for an entity to exist and lack a cause thus poisoning the original premise “everything that exists must have a cause”. After all, if it is the case that there are possibly entities that do not require a cause, then existence does not require an explanation, and the argument is useless.

I mean, could it be possible that existence is an inescapable property of matter (ie that matter always existed)?

Possible but unlikely, due to the thermodynamic arrow of time. That is, matter is a state of being which includes potential energy, which shouldn’t be possible given an infinite time-line where closed systems always tend towards a state of kinetic disorder.

I guess it stems from questions about the big bang. Did the singularity of existence always exist? Is it even meaningful to talk in those terms? What do you think?

It probably isn’t meaningful to talk in those terms when regarding the singularity, since concepts like time and space and causality become messier the closer one comes to the conditions hypothesized to exist within such an entity.

As they say, “We may ask…”.

Also… it’s a scientific fact that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors (humans are apes, btw, one of the four species of hominidae / great ape). It’s just as true as anything in natural science, as true as the earth revolving around the sun or that large masses create gravitational fields. There are mountains of evidence from many different fields (biology, geology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, embryology, to name a few). There is no evidence against it. The only argument against evolution is “I don’t believe it”.

The question is how, not whether.

Hey! No way! It’s always great to hear other voices!

:) I appreciate you!

Lol. I don’t know about you, but I don’t put myself on the same level as monkies. Though you probably think I have the intelligence of one. But, I didn’t say I believe God exists because of free will, I meant that that’s why evil things happen. We have the free will to do evil things as well as good things.

I think you meant Jenny McCarthy.

Yes Marley, you would ban me because you think like a cult member that has been trained to tolerate only echoes of the sermons of their masters. Nothing new here. You are a dime a dozen and that is being kind.

“Answered prayers” are always attributable to coincidence. God never answers impossible prayers. That’s because God is imaginary.

If, however, you pray for something impossible (water to wine!), and it does happen… then that is evidence of an answered prayer.

Even that would not convince me… ;-)

That is not true. The hypothesis of evolution had been around for hundreds or thousands (Artistotle might have thought of it, unclear) of years. Darwin didn’t come up with evolution, he came up with a plausible mechanism for getting complexity from simplicity, which is the theory of natural selection. Darwin elevated evolution from a hypothesis to a theory.

Someone probably would have made the same observations he did. The Theory of evolution may have been set back a few years but modern science would eventually catch on. Natural selection and variation within a species are readily observable occurrences. Another biologist would have noticed these things and taken it from there.

If Edison didn’t exist would we have light bulbs today?

If Jesus didn’t exist would Christianity be here today?

Mmm, calculus, great point.

Also note that in scientific terms, theories explain facts; they are not different grades on a sliding scale of certainty. If you let go of an apple, it falls toward the center of the earth; that’s the fact of gravity. This falling behavior (fact) is predicted and explained by the theory of gravitation.

Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples didn’t hang in the air pending the outcome. The fact of gravity remained unchanged, the human explanations got refined.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory because people use one word to describe two different things: the fact of how life developed on earth, and the theory that attempts to explain it.

You all should watch an episode of Criminal Minds I saw on CBS not too long ago. It’s episode 17 called “Religious Practice.” It’s about a Catholic priest who gets so lost in his own belief, he loses common sense and tries to cast demons out of people and ends up killing them as a result. He justifies his acts by claiming that it was for the god. Which it wasn’t of course. He was insane. It’s a really good episode. Semi-irrelevant to this conversation, but i think you’d enjoy it.

“If Jesus didn’t exist would Christianity be here today?”
No.

You are officially the first person in all my years that I have ever heard deny the existence of Jesus Christ. Not even the most apt atheists I’ve known have denied that He existed. Ever. Kudos to you, bdemong.

Actually, many atheists deny the existence of Jesus as a specific human being, for basically the grounds that bdemong illustrated. If this is new, and I don’t mean this the wrong way, but you need to get out more and talk to more atheists. :)

You are officially the first person in all my years that I have ever heard deny the existence of Jesus Christ. Not even the most apt atheists I’ve known have denied that He existed. Ever. Kudos to you, bdemong.

“You are officially the first person in all my years that I have ever heard deny the existence of Jesus Christ.”

Oh, well, if lots of people believe something that must make it true.

I’m afraid my ideas aren’t original, though. You might google “historicity of jesus” sometime.

The sad part is, it doesn’t really matter whether he existed or not.

Jesus is the Latin derivative of the Aramaic name of Jesus (Yeshua?)

@Niva

I think it’s less of a regional thing, and more of an internet thing. Most of scholar who argue that Jesus was a mythical figure are considered cranks in academic circles. So they thrive on the ‘net, arguing back and forth. Frankly, they often sound more like conspiracy theorists than historians to me. But then, I’m a archivist, and I think we tend to be rather conservative.

So you can check out the scholarly arguments against the history of Jesus online. Dr. Robert M. Price has an essay titled, “Christ a Fiction” that gives a good precis of some of the major arguments.

Of course, the most sustained argument comes from Earl Doherty’s Jesus Puzzle site.

It is not a direct translation.

Again, you give none of the evidence you claim and instead attack me. Way to be as convincing as usual!

Oh I love difference of opinion. I welcome it. It’s your attitude that makes you annoying, not your disagreement.

Hey Alex! I haven’t studied theology, so you can’t tell me that I should know all of the evidence for God’s existence already like you just did to Daniel. Quit procrastinating, and tell me what this wonderful evidence is. I’m keen to hear it. Genuinly.

Still waiting.

Alex Guggenheim,

Why are you a Christian?

If you can’t answer this question, then you really have no business discussing this.

So what’s your answer?

Ouch. That’s painfully bad.

its a wonder he can tie his own shoes

But somehow the ugly, contemptible and personal insults by others toward…say me…they aren’t bothersome eh? Those are just dandy attitudes! LOL

You are amusing in your duplicity and feigned outrage.

Yes yes LMNOP,

There is always the elitist excuse that your insults are somehow more valuable, I know…again nothing new here. Just more self-aggrandizement and self-justification of duplicity. YAWN.

I never said my insults (sparing, though they are) were valuable. Just giving an account of why they exist.

Then it must be our job to make people interested.

Oh so “I” am the fault of what you now concede is your bad behavior. How typically leftist of you to blame someone else for your bad behavior.

My behavior, which YOU characterize as “bad” is mine and mine alone, which unlike many of you leftist I DON’T blame on someone else.

Touche’.

It is evident that christians are proving that christianity is a false religion in their arguments.

Alex: “SMACK!”

this seriously reminds of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1vbWU&feature=channel

God exists. he made the universe. i’m 100% sure of it. how do i know? from the bible. “in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.”
it says so right there on page 1 in the book God himself says he wrote. CHECKMATE!

“Oh so “I” am the fault of what you now concede is your bad behavior. How typically leftist of you to blame someone else for your bad behavior.”

“My behavior, which YOU characterize as “bad” is mine and mine alone, which unlike many of you leftist I DON’T blame on someone else.”

What on earth makes you think thet everyone eher is leftist? I happen to be one, but political ideology is not what draws people together here. My guess is that a survey of posters on this blog would find people all the way across the spectrum of political beliefs.

BTW…your last shot about leftists blaming someone else is flat out untrue and uncalled for.

Who told you that you couldn’t have a cup of tea with God? Have you ever tried? :)

No, Alex.

We have witnessed people building houses and we know where houses come from. And actually, it is you who has abandoned common sense. This whole claim of irreducible complexity, therefore ID, is fundamentally wrong. It has been disproved repeatedly. Stepwise evolution has been observed (although creationists like to muddy the waters by claiming that it is only microevolution- without realizing their mistake there).

Wait, what now?

I’m not sure what you’re asking here.

Are you saying we have evolved intelligence because we came from an intelligent creator?

Could you provide some evidence for that claim?

My claim (which fits nicely into evolutionary theory) is that intelligence evolved slowly. For instance, neanderthals were, as a whole, less intelligent than modern humans. Further, intelligence is a complicated phenotype that is observed in many species, such as dolphins. It serves a purpose in the survival of species that possess it.

Can you refute that?

No, you tell me since I have never made such a claim and you are the person that introduced it.

LMNOP,

Well in your estimation maybe, but then you are convinced your insults are some how in a class superior to others…LOL.

So with you I am considering the source.

Alex, do you really think I don’t know the main arguments for God’s existence? Seriously? And do you really expect me to do your work for you and list them all and explain them?

“Because if you didn’t forget and did really learn as much as you claim, instead of claiming their is no evidence you would be listing what Christians claim is evidence and systematically dismounting it…but of course you didn’t and aren’t doing that…which tells me something else.”

Really Alex? This is where you want to take this? Post after post on this blog deals with the dismantling of argumnets for the existence of god. Clearly Daniel is asking which arguments YOU think support the existence of god. are you saying that Damniel and other have missed some argument?

Why won’t you tell us what evidence you have to support the existence of god?

That “my little one” is pretty condescending and you won’t present evidence even though you claim resoundingly “there is evidence”.

That’s because people have a reason to not want cat feces on their carpet. It smells bad and it’s not fun to step in or show to guests. Who WANTS to believe they came from an ape? I’m perfectly fine believing that I didn’t. I admit, just because you believe something, doesn’t make it true. But do you have a reason to want to have evolved from an ape?

Tsk tsk,

Be patient, not all methods are immediate and obvious. The apish insist that their dulled intellect and truncated constitution be satiated with the immediate and obvious.

At least let me preheat the oven for Pete’s sake.

Who’s Jenny McCarthy? I’m pretty sure he meant Senator Joseph McCarthy, the origin of the red scare in the 1950’s and main proprietor of McCarthyism.

I like Niva too. It’s really nice for someone to delineate their beliefs, so that you can understand where they’re coming from, instead of driveby postings and insults. Kudos to you for explaining why you believe in god, instead of acting like we’re just god-haters who refuse to see the light.

Well, want doesn’t really come into it. Apes have an extra chromosome, and humans have a chromosome that’s twice as long as all of the others and has end markers in the middle. Together with the fossil record and all the rest of the evidence, what I’d like to believe really doesn’t figure :-)

Well Niva, you seem really cool, so I’m happy to answer any questions/concerns you have about this topic!!! :)

I don’t have a reason to WANT to have evolved from an ape-like ancestor, although personally I don’t find it offensive, either. I do have a reason to set aside the idea that humans are somehow different in origin from the apes, and that is that the available evidence overwhelmingly indicates that we aren’t.

Believing that humans are uniquely created and have nothing in common with the apes is kinda like believing that babies are delivered by storks – it’s a nice story, and perhaps believable enough if you don’t know anything about reproductive biology, but once you have seen the overwhelming evidence that babies are produced by sexual intercourse, and seen that there is a complete lack of evidence for storks that deliver babies, it’s not sensible to continue to believe in baby-delivering storks. Just because a child having his or her first introduction to the topic may find the concept of sex “yuk” doesn’t make it untrue. And we would consider anyone who continues to believe that babies are delivered by stork because they don’t like the idea of sex is living out of step with reality.

Also, wanting to believe something has no affect on its truth.

Oh gee, why with you saying “and damnit that’s just rude…let’s see if you can convert me” has convinced me like shit on a sandwich that a dialog with you is just what I have been missing.

By the way it isn’t my job to convert anyone. Your brain belongs to you, it is your responsibility to reason within yourself. The approach you are taking of trying to convert people smacks of insecure cult methods.

Well Alex, then tell us how a person like custador ought to approach the matter. Where should he start?

By the way it isn’t my job to convert anyone.

If you are a Christian, it is your job to bear witness to the truth of Christ. Says so, in the Bible.

elemnope is right. It IS your job. Plain and simple.

It was meant as a compliment :-)

F the ineffable.

Ummmmmm, then God is a LIAR Alex!

Sorry, but science across multiple, multiple fields from the biological sciences, to the earth sciences, to physics, don’t support the claims of the bible.

God is NOT self-evident.

For instance– if God created the world 6000 years ago, then why do we see stars and galaxies that are more than 6000 light years away (given that the speed of light is constant as determined by Einstein?)?

Where did I SAY God created the the world or anything 6,000 years ago? I didn’t. Maybe you should read more carefully.

Others might have claimed this but I never said I did and just because others have doesn’t give you license to assume with supreme arrogance that is my position…oops your bad. It isn’t my position.

I believe in a rather ancient earth and universe.

YAWN.

mmmkkkkk,

So you believe in an old earth/universe but not in evolution? Interesting.

BTW I used the example of the age of the universe to support my claim that the bible is not inerrant. It doesn’t matter what you believe, for the age of the universe is a scientific fact.

So, yeah, maybe YOU should read.

Alex– put up or shut up. I’m getting tired of you.

Where does the Bible claim the earth or the universe is 6,000 years old?

This might be an approachable dialog…but then dinner is calling and I am planning to watch “Quantum of Solace” with Daniel Craig who, though atypical as a Bond, is Bond worthy.

“Yeah, you’ve got spiritual/logical ED.”

So do they make a version of cialis or viagara for bad internet arguers?

Sorry Niva, but Alex has a loooooonnnggg history of acting this way. I’m just calling him out on it!

Well, anyone who wastes time by throwing out insults, then claiming that he is warming up (preheating) his argument, only to yank the plug because it’s “dinnertime” deserves a bit of ribbing, as far as I’m concerned.

Alex Guggenheim,

You said:

“God declares himself to be self-evident.”

Isn’t that the same thing as saying,

“The book declares that the things in the book are self-evident!!11″

Circular logic.

Nothing can penetrate it.

The Lord of the Rings says that Sauron exists, but is that good enough for you to take it seriously?

“The Lord of the Rings says that Sauron exists, but is that good enough for you to take it seriously?”

Well, the One True Ring(TM) (aka my precious!) represents the Divine Circular Logic manifested brilliantly in gold. So yes, I’d say that Sauron exists!

Gollum, gollum!

;)

Andy,

Hint hint, look at my post, I said essentially I agree and above it is a quote from you…hint hint, that is to what I was referring.

But you want to be taken seriously and then infect it with an insult:
______________________________

Andrew N.P.

“Essentially I agree.” That you’re almost certainly a troll?
______________________________

Sorry Andy, no more trust for you. On to the next person.

Alex Guggenheim,

Andrew NP asked you if you were a troll one time and now you *absolutely refuse* to cooperate with him?

Alex, if I stopped listening to you after the first five or six times you called me or someone else something patronizing…

You’re being obviously hypocritical. You can’t take what you dish. This is ridiculous.

You have no business at all dismissing someone for one semi-snide comment when you have made dozens of them, many worse.

That’s an absurd and ridiculous double standard.

That’s a load of nonsense. Put up, or shut up.

Roger

That’s a load of nonsense. Put up, or shut up.
___________________________

Wow, now this is the most compelling atheist line of logic yet! Yes I am convinced I must reply immediately! LOL

Roger, I think even some of the atheists groaned with your impudent rant.

As I said up above, Alex is the bad lay of UF. He’s got a bad case of spiritual/logical ED. If only there was a pill for that.

Alex Guggenheim,

You say that you know what you’re doing?

You sound just as believable as Michael Steele.

Would you elaborate what you mean by “afterwards they have to pick up the fragment”?

Well, then Jesus was a girl. (It would make sense given the flowy hair and sparkly blue eyes!)

Ha! Nah– it’d just make Jesus an XO genotype female.

As I see it, Alex’s “evidence” is this:
1) Intelligent Design
2) God is self-evident

As for #1, he can’t back it up. He has demonstrated his lack of scientific knowledge in other threads concerning evolution and information theory, and he usually simply ignores any critique of ID.

As for #2, this is a conclusion that serves as its own premise. God is only self-evident if you accept God to begin with. Alex pretends he has some profound knowledge demonstrating why God is real, but he refuses to present anything concrete because he knows it won’t hold up. Better to just pretend.

If Alex bothers to responds to this, I predict he will do it by using various insults and try to give the impression that he knows some secret which he will refuse to divulge.

Prove me wrong, Alex. It would make the discussion much more interesting.

Damn. He left the oven on from all his preheating. Stupid troll!

Wow. Are you a prophet? Are you like the crazy prognosticator from Mars?

You predicted the old razzle dazzle. Show I won’t steal your method.

I know nothing secret, I have already stated clearly and repeatedly the evidence of God is all around you. Again, must I list the obvious? Is this how you want me to treat you? As if you are so unlearned as to not know what is right in front of you?

No one here thinks that you have the intelligence of a monkey. I promise. :) Well, Ty might, but he’s a bit rough around the edges.

Just because you aren’t on the same page as us, that doesn’t mean that we think you demonstrate intelligence by putting a stick in an anthill and then pulling it out to eat the ants.

I just finished watching your link to: The Collapse of Intelligent Design. I found it very informative and educational. I don’t understand how poeple can just plain ignore what’s right in front of them. All they have to do is look.

J.R.,

The vast majority of people believe in a WYSIWYG universe. Unless you’re taught that what you see is not what you get (that there’s a lot going on beneath the surface of things) you’re unlikely to examine what perceptions indicate.

Nooooo, I would suggest that Alex provides a mountain of evidence to prove that claim wrong every time he sits at his keyboard…

His approach doesn’t accomplish anything except galvanize opinion against his point of view and make everyone angry. It’s puzzling that he would come here, of all places, and make his little statements. His behavior just supports my theory that Alex Guggenheim is a troll, looking to get his rocks off by frustrating some dumb ole atheists on the interwebs. Why doesn’t he try this shit on Pharyngula?

Sock! You’re great! he he he!

I never watch FoxNews, so I had no idea Glenn Beck was such a weepy asshat, or that he looks like a giant newborn baby.

No, no, no.

ARGUMENT FROM DIVINE DIVA-NESS

(1) Patti LaBelle is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

Miguel,

When the occasion presents itself I certainly will grant a full presentation of my considerations and without the petty weaponry of mud and rocks. But right now I need to find out who the sycophantic roaches are and who those are interested in something beyond the echoes of their own mind.

Thanks

Alex

Well how many times of the entire thread number have I posted the first? How many?

Ah yes just a few which was contrary to the claim that it was always, or constant.

Yawn. Why must I always be right? Some of you can be too if you would just pay attention!

OMG of ALL the claims hurled at you, this is the one you choose to ague with? YAWN.

Alex is all hat and no cattle.

I almost thought he is look for lobsters.

What are you even talking about? I ask for substance, you give me blather.

I think you are afraid to present your ideas.

Sorry, prof. This is the last post on which I will engage this idiot. I just wanted to say that I gave him every chance to prove himself. Of course, he failed.

Suffered? Here? LOL are you kidding? You poor minions of atheism…always projecting your complex onto others.

This is entertainment here, recreation. I’ve seen better bullies than any of you heavy breathing shadows when I was in kindergarten. Suffering? Persecuted? LOL

So far you have only entertained me and given me a mild laugh from time to time.

Why don’t you take the sabbath off?

Alex, you are going to get yourself banned man.. That can’t be good. Our side could use someone like you to actually ‘debate’ and ‘defend’, not ‘debate’ and ‘insult’. Just my opinion though..

Question: “Secondly, do people in heaven have free will, and if so, are they able to choose evil?”

Xian guest, Miguel responds….”They probably have free-will, but how many people do you think win the lottery and choose to throw away the ticket?”

Christians believe that they have access to the “winning lotto ticket” right here and now, but yet, as evidenced, they can, and do, fall short of “Holiness”..i.e..”perfection”.

So, unless human nature – including the propensity to make “unHoly” choices – is somehow removed, then the occupants of “Heaven” will be no different than the occupants of earth. The human nature of the former will eventually give way to unHoliness.

You cannot have it both ways. Either human nature is removed prior to entering “Heaven”, or it is left intact. The problem with each senario is self-evident.

Miguel: “They probably have free-will, but how many people do you think win the lottery and choose to throw away the ticket?”

Curious what you think happened to the billions of humans that died before Christ came to save us? Did they get a lottery ticket?

Miguel,

They love me, well a few of them. :)

But I am approaching some possible dialog with a few of the posters. They are beginning to understand boundaries work both ways.

Oh- so you’re trying to say that we violate your boundaries and that you’re *stifles laugh* “teaching us” *snicker* “a…. lesson”????

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaahahahaaahaaaaahaaa!

Wow. That is the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time!

Oh, man, Alex. Thanks for the belly laugh! I needed that.

You call it ‘debate’, do you? Interesting. I call it ‘w@nk’, and w@nk lacking in imagination or finesse at that.

Never mind what it has to say (i.e. nothing) – how about you put your point of view across, Miguel? I’m guessing that even if we don’t agree with your stance, we’ll enjoy debating with you.

But right now I need to find out who the sycophantic roaches are and who those are interested in something beyond the echoes of their own mind.

No, you don’t. That’s a poor excuse if ever there was one. You present what you have. Some would engage the way you want, and you would continue with those people. Others will engage otherwise, and you would ignore them.

And most people here, including the ones who if you had started respectfully would have responded in kind, after your repeated performances, are unlikely to believe that you have anything of worth to offer.

This I-need-to-find-those-who-are-worthy crap is just that.

Well, according to cognitive science, all we have are “the echoes of [our] own mind[s]“, nothing beyond.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-science/

As I said, all hat, no cattle. You’re still shooting blanks.

“Christians believe that they have access to the “winning lotto ticket” right here and now, but yet, as evidenced, they can, and do, fall short of “Holiness”..i.e..”perfection”. ”

– Yes, the knowledge of Jesus’ sacrifice for me is “access to the winning lotto ticket”. Many fall short (I won’t use the word ‘perfection’ here). Many televangelists in particular.

“So, unless human nature – including the propensity to make “unHoly” choices – is somehow removed, then the occupants of “Heaven” will be no different than the occupants of earth. The human nature of the former will eventually give way to unHoliness.”

- Yes, but now with OBJECTIVE knowledge of what that (unholy)choice will bring – seperation from eternal happiness. So I ask, who in their right mind would choose that? Unholy desires (if they existed in this state) would infinitely pale in comparison to the desire to remain in heaven.

Who do you know would choose to exchange away a winning lottery ticket for a cheeseburger?

“You cannot have it both ways. Either human nature is removed prior to entering “Heaven”, or it is left intact. The problem with each senario is self-evident.”

- I’m not having it both ways. Explained it up.

“So, as I understand it, you are conceding my point that having access to this “winning ticket”, as in, pertaining to an eternal life of unadulterated bliss in “Heaven”, is not an absolute, fail-safe deterrant, as in, a guarantee that human beings will not act in accordance with their human, “sinful” nature. Is that a fair assessment? ”

– Yes.

“This is remarkable disclosure. Are you saying that Christians cannot/do not know, in any objective sense, that the Christian philosophy is the Ultimate Truth? If so, I invite any onlooking Christians to take notice. ”

- Well, I can’t talk for all Christians. We can certainly argue St Paul seemingly had a different circumstance. It seems Padre Pio did too. I certainly am in no position to talk about the degree of objectivity for others. But for me, the honest answer is, I’ve experienced many things that I consider to be Gods presence – I can certainly argue with myself that I’ve been delusional at times or these feelings were simply physiological reactions that I misinterpreted, but my heart tells me what it tells me, and I have faith.

Certainly this would be immensely different, in our hypothetical, if you were in heaven face to face with God.

“You are now speculating on the behalf of other human beings. As long as human beings have their “inherently sinful” nature, they are unpredictable, and thus, you cannot possibly be qualified to know the minds/choices of others in an absolute sense. Saying something is unlikely, as in asking, “who in their right mind(?)”, etc., still leaves open the possibility.”

– You are right. I guess there is a possibility that someone would choose a cheeseburger over a winning lottery ticket. Well, ok, granted.

“It boils down to this: In this “Heavenly” place, or state-of-being, it’s either possible that human beings will fall away from “Holiness”,”

- If you grant that its possible for winning lottery tickets to be traded for cheeseburgers, I guess anythings possible.

” or it’s not possible. To my understanding, humans, and their human nature, are inseparable.”

- human nature is the nature of a human right? When he becomes spirit, I guess thats ’spirit nature’ right? Now, given that, would you still agree that they retain their “human nature” in heaven?

“Then you concede what I consider to be a very relevent point, that is, that as long as human beings have their human nature intact(whether it be in “Heaven”, or wherever), they also then have the innate potential to “screw up”, thus, your original “lotto ticket” analogy is lacking…i.e…not a good one. Not-to-mention, you cannot simply “choose” to win the lottery.”

- What?!

How sneaky of you. If you were assuming I, from the beginning already conceded the whole argument, why all the hullaballoo?

No. I conceded that knowledge of Christs sacrifice is “access to the “winning lotto ticket” . And I conceded that despite having “access to the “winning lotto ticket” this does not stop people from being immoral.

I never conceded that they have the innate potential to screw up in ‘heaven’ because of their ‘human nature’. Please read again.

And No, My analogy isn’t lacking. And I find it tedious to be having to explain to you the parallels, so please read up again how our argument went.

It all depends on whether it is the act that makes an act moral, or the choice that makes an act moral. I understand how you would come to the conclusions you do, seeing as how Christianity pretty firmly endorses the second. I personally believe that an endorsement of such a theory of moral causation leads to some pretty bizarre and intuitively unacceptable conclusions.

No, what I’m talking about is not the Euthyphro. That was the question about whether things are good because God likes them or are they liked by God because they are good.

Mine was a simple question of ethical theory (no paradox), whether an act is right or wrong because of the act itself, or whether it is right or wrong because of the choice that led to the act.

Is it the ‘doing’ or the ‘choosing’ that makes the thing done right or wrong?

Dorkman,

If your aim is writing for schmucks like John Stewart, even this won’t pass. You only had one line that was remotely clever.

“I have already stated clearly and repeatedly the evidence of God is all around you. ”

Are you making an argument from design?

Behold my predictive powers. My next prediction is that the Pope soon will make a hypocritical statement about poverty or sexuality.

LMNOP,

Well either one of two things will happen.

Either the atheists who claim to love integrity in debate and discussion will demonstrate it by being equally outraged when their own use the petty weaponry of insults (I have yet to see this in even the most minor cases never mind the blatant ones) they clamor and cry about in pointing to what they consider offensive mounts and both sides will call a truce and come to an agreed upon form of self-imposed rejection of such weaponry and when one of the atheists engage with it they will be summarily beaten down through a verbal barrage by their own because it is adamantly unacceptable from even one atheist in debate

or

I will be forced to continue to find out who those are that wish to engage on a platform of mutual respect and enlightenment and when I find them, I can then engage on a platform of mutual trust.

However, don’t think there aren’t some interested in discussion and debate without the petty weaponry of insults, there are, you apparently just aren’t one of them.

“That is what John C did.”

Tele – I have to disagree with this one. John C. responded to virtually every question with incoherent babble. In many ways he was even more frustrating than Alex.

At least Alex speaks in complete sentences.

Hey- I openly admit to snarkiness. When I first stumbled on this blog, I was researching the science education/ ID crisis in Texas, and as a science researcher and certified teacher in this state, I was mad as hell and ready to fight. I’ll still fight if I have to. I have no problem with that. But guess what, Alex, I back up the sh*t I say. You just blather.

I have no problem with lip, so long at it’s backed up.

You’ve got nothing…

I’m sorry to hear that.

That’s called “lulz.” It’s what every troll strives for. And if you’re here simply to stir up these people “for the lulz,” then you are by definition a troll.

Now, despite the name, trolling is nothing to be ashamed of. It has nothing to do with the nasty little creatures who live under bridges. Rather, it comes from the fishing technique wherein a baited line is slowly pulled across the water. Trolling is an art as old as the Internet itself, and it’s often a useful tool to keep people’s egos and emotions in check. So wear your label with honor. Say it loud, say it proud.

Successful Troll is Successful.

(For moar on trolling and other Internet-related topics, visit the Encyclopedia Dramatica — but be careful; half the site is Not Safe For Work, and the other half is even worse.)

jayglo – I’m sure this isn’t the first time you’ve heard this, but the burden of proof falls on those making an extraordinary claim. The existence of god is an extraordinary claim.

If I came to you and said: “I have a heard of invisible bison living in my back yard,” wouldn’t your first resonse be something along the lines of: “Really, that doesn’t seem very believable to me. Prove it.”

That’s what atheists are saying to you. “Really, the existence of god doesn’t sound very believable to me. Prove it.”

Alex, you’ve fired derision at this forum like a bibulous machine gunner.

Every conceivable slander against you has only reflected on your own aspersions.

Write us off as “minions” if you will, but I will not dehumanize you so quickly.

I know you can be a reasonable person, when nestled comfortably in your Evangelical message boards.

Please, do me -and yourself- this favor. Without denigrating anyone, lay out your reason behind your beliefs, alongside your reason for posting to this thread.

He’ll also deny that priests are paedophiles, claim that condoms are responsible for the AIDS epidemic in Africa, and conveniently gloss over the fact that he used to be an active member of the Hitler youth and a vocal Holocaust denier. Religion… In no other institution in the Western world would a man like that be in a possition of power.

But it is nice to see…you are quite aware of the design.

Alex Guggenheim,

Which aspects of our world do you see as designed?

But that’s nonsense! There is no logical chain that could possibly lead you to that conclusion – the fact that the universe exists is ONLY evidence that the universe exists; it is NOT evidence that “somebody” created it. Per your own argument, since you believe so strongly that God exists, if you’re right then that is evidence that somebody created him. Who was that, then?

Don’t you know Tele-

Alex just wants to manipulate us into submission so that he forces us to engage him on his terms. Then he wants to lure us away to have conversations that are not in the public forum so that he can’t be held personally accountable for his bs by people who know better. He doesn’t want real dialogue, he wants to pick off those that he feels he can “get to”. I’m sorry but that strikes me as predatory.

Wait- I retract my statement about being lured into private conversation. I misread one of his points (it happens– I was thinking of Stephen Webb as well who used that tactic). The rest of what I said stands.

Thanks for your open mind on this issue. I understand that presenting your reasons for belief may be lengthy and difficult to articulate, but in advocating the presence of a God, your personal rationales must be revealed in order to present a persuasive argument.

Allow me to begin with my reasons for joining the discussion.

I agree the cosmos is beautiful and inspiring; it’s one of my chief interests, alongside theoretical physics, biology, and the study of consciousness.

When I bring these things up in conversation, I can see the religious eyes in the room glaze over, because although they expect me to give their religion deference and respect, they have no trouble writing my passions off to “Playing God.”

And I have a problem with that, Alex. So many people know nothing about these things I love, but they’ll rail against my pursuit of knowledge, because my research challenges their argument from ignorance.

Your turn :-)

What about the second website?

Indeed, Sock, indeed…

done and done

*plonk*

“a sad sack of intolerance”

Pot, meet kettle.

And trolls who are revealed as trolls should be ignored. Persistent trolls should be b&.

Your arrogance is astounding… I’m actually astounded. Daniel, this isn’t another John
C-esque caper, is it?? We know how good you are at coming up with intellectually deficient characters with nothing contributary to say ;)

Well, the change would have been small at first. For example, there are two species of squirrels that live across the grand canyon from each other. At first they were one species, but geological separation plus dynamic DNA means that they are now speciated (meaning they can’t breed together).

Think about dogs. Dogs are so diverse looking today because of genetic change (as pressured by human breeders). A great dane and a teacup chiuaua are now somewhat speciated because a little teacup dog cant carry puppies that big.

For humans and apes, the change would have happened over time, and with geographical separations, it is not hard to imagine how the apes all became speciated.

A final instance is the case of the donkey and horse. Donkeys and horses are considered separate species. They can breed together to make a mule, but this offspring is sterile. This shows how horses and mules are related, but separated species.

Hope that helps!

–Astronomers have discovered that there was without a doubt a beginning point in the universe. There was a time when it started – when it was created. How could something come from nothing without a divine power making it?

–How could life begin?

–At microscopic levels, there are very complex systems that makes everything work. Many cells are like tiny machines.

–”Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?” (from http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/does-god-exist-c.htm)

–”People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena?”

–If there was no God, no religions could be so strong and last so long. Religious people wouldn’t feel so strongly about God’s love for them. Most of the world is religious and always has been – how could that be the case if they are all following something that doesn’t exist?

–Miracles are proof. There are saints whose bodies are not decaying. They are incorruptable. There are miracles happening every day around the world, whether big or small. Another example is that of a man whose dad had a deadly form of cancer. One day the dad told his son that God would heal him. The son didn’t believe in miracles and knew that this was a deadly form of cancer so he didn’t know what to think about it. However, just a few days later, the cancer was gone completely.

There are many more proofs too. Just look around you in the world and it is full of proof of God.

None of what you’ve presented is proof of the existence of God.

1. Equating the beginning of the universe to something “created” does not automatically prove the existence of a deity. Further, if something did “create” the universe, then what created it?

2. Go over to Pharyngula or any other science blog/textbook to read about the beginnings of life. From a layman’s perspective, life as we know it is the result of millions of years of evolution.

3. Cells “being like tiny machines” is not proof of the existence of any deity–if you want to present cells as being the result of a deity, you still have to present proof of the existence of the deity.

4. Which philosophers? All philosophers? Hardly. And even if I believed this bit of sophistry, their agreement is still. not. proof.

5. Wishful thinking, delusion, hallucination, etc, etc.

6. Logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum. Just because a LOT of people believe a thing doesn’t mean that it’s true.

7. Re: the cancer: cite your sources–and make sure those sources are verified by medical experts (not Peter Popoff or Benny Hinn).

8. The world is proof of itself–not the existence of a deity or deities.

Thank you. :)

You know I was just kidding about that, right? I wasn’t really John C. It was an April Fool’s Joke. Just making sure…

Something being unexplained is not evidence for a supernatural explanation. It is only evidence that it is unexplained.

The appearance of “supernatural being” in this reasoning is not logical. Saying “I can’t explain this, therefore it is supernatural” is the same thing as saying “I can’t explain this, therefore I can explain it”.

@Roger

God is eternal, from a biblical standpoint. He was, is, and is to come. If that is right, then He just is.

Well, Niva, if “God” is eternal–or, “just is,” then that violates your own argument that everything must be caused. If God cannot be caused, then why present an argument that the universe had to have been caused?

Yes, it’s a good video. Are you suggesting that is not true?

Also, are you saying “either explain this, or there is a god”? Because unfortunately I can’t explain it. I don’t think that’s a very strong argument for the existence of god.

PS: You asked for logical flaws in your reasoning to be pointed out. That was my purpose in quoting the open-mindedness video. Why reject it out of hand?

Okay, but the fundamental difference is, I am not asserting anything (“I don’t know”), but you are (“God loves you”).

@elemenope

Very true. But how long has the question of why or how our existence came about been around? Since we began, I would suppose. Or, since our intelligence has developed enough to ask, for evolutionists. It’s the longest standing “unsolved puzzle.” Who knows, maybe I’m just taking the short way out because I’m tired of not having an answer. People do that a lot. But I haven’t done that with anything I know of so far.

Btw, good choice of words:
“It tears the cosmological argument for God into logical tatters and leaves the laws of physics an incoherent wreck.”

1. A celestial teapot, a celestial spongebob squarepants…simply saying “what could have created it besides God” isn’t a scientific, verifiable response; rather, it’s a supposition that has no basis in empirical fact.

2. Regarding morality: first, is there an objective moral standard? Hardly. Further, evolutionary biologists argue that morality such as we understand it is an evolutionary trait that ensures the survival of the species.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Morality-Life-Mind-Philosophical/dp/0262600722/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239060016&sr=8-1

3. Which bodies of which “saints” are “incorruptible”?
4. The source for the cancer “miracle” is about a book–written from an already biased perspective–about so-called miracles that haven’t been independently verified.

There’s simply no evidence for the existence of a “soul” or “spirit” or any other such entity that could be separated from the human body.

Niva-

I have struggled with pointlessness/ meaninglessness/ purposelessness, and I still believe in (or at least hope for) a god. For the non-believer, happiness and meaningfulness are amplified especially *because* this is likely all there is. Every single day is precious. Leaving this world better than when you found it is especially important *because* your legacy is all you have. Does that make sense?

:)

I prefer a bracing truth to a comforting lie. How can you make decisions based on something you can’t know?

There are consequences for your actions in *this* life regardless of what you believe. Also, I’d rather interact with people who are moral because they’ve thought about it and decided that’s the best way to be, than people who are only moral because there is an immaterial camera in the sky that will punish them if they aren’t.

If all religious people ever did was have internal fantasies and live better lives, that’d be great. Unfortunately, religion is the primary cause of human suffering.

That’s just a version of Pascal’s Wager, surely? Also, I think what you’re saying is that atheists die discontent and/or wondering if they did what they did for nothing. I can’t speak for all atheists, obv, but speaking for myself: I may regret not having done certain things in my life, but not staying with the xian religion won’t be one of them. All kinds of horrendous things made me leave (only one of which was loss of faith) and so I’m glad I did.

Besides which, I don’t think one can “decide” to believe in god. If I suddenly wanted to believe now, for reasons of hedging my bets a la Pascal, I’d have great difficulty in being genuine about it.

I used to be a Christian. I have a Bible verse tattooed on my arm.

I found the realization that there is no external meaning a huge relief. It means *you* decide what is meaningful.

LRA: “*because* your legacy is all you have.”

I disagree. Why would you care what others think of you when you’re dead? I would argue that all you have is right now – and to live your life worrying about what others think of you is kinda like living in a prison.

Anyone can, and will, decide for themselves what is meaningful. Anyone can, and will, do what they deem fit to do. I realized that a loooong time ago. Whether one believes or not, the choices are all up to them. I choose to live a moral life because I feel like that is the right thing to do, whether God is or is not. But believing in God isn’t “intellectual” for me. Nor should it be. God is illogical and an insane “concept.” When I was an atheist, nothing made sense, unless it was “logical.” Then I realized life itself isn’t logical. Why would there be a logical explanation for something that’s illogical? An no, I’m not kidding. Lol.

Sorry, bdemong. My bad.

It’s simple, actually. The age old question: why are we here? Has anyone come up with a LOGICAL and INDESPUTABLE explanation? Nope. That’s why this forum exists.

If there is no why, then that is neither logical nor indisputable.

Yes, that is my point, it is a meaningless question.

Why?, from whose perspective?

Sorry, I didn’t realize I had worded that so stupidly.

When I say consequences, I mean eternal consequences. If God doesn’t exist, there are no eternal consequenes. Therefore, if atheists are right, anyone CAN do anything they want without consequence. I never said anyone definetely WILL. But plenty of people have. For their sake, maybe you’re right.

Well, for me, the consequences here have been painful enough. And I’ve suffered because of things beyond my control (things other people did to me). I’ve suffered enough. I can’t imagine god putting me through eternal damnation. I’ve already paid many times over for any sin I could commit (and if I make mistakes in the future will pay for those then, too). Life is heaven, and it’s hell too.

By the way, teleprompter.

I wasn’t accusing you of anything. I simply said that you were asking the same question as Euthyphro did when he had a similar discussion with Plato.

I also was not refusing to answer, I thought you would google it. I wouldn’t be able to explain it better here.

I do believe you’d get along very well with a very good friend of mine. You have her reasoning. And that’s a compliment.

Miguel: “It was not an attempt to prove that ‘morals come from God’. But rather an attempt to explain what you saw as a contradiction in the assertion that ‘morals come from God’. I’m arguing that there is no contradiction.”

I don’t remember saying that the proposition that “morals come God” is a “contradiction”. What I assert, is that it is an UNproven proposition. You, on this very thread, have conceded that it cannot even be known, in any “objective” sense, if a “God” exists. Thus, to my understanding, you left hypothesizing that *if* a “God” exists, then morality necessarily comes from said being. Yes? I think so…..and again, Miguel?…this is false. We do NOT get “morality” from a “Divine” source, and we don’t need absolute knowedge as to the existence of a “God”, or not, to illustrate this. As I’ve pointed out numerous times—the proposition that things like killing and lying are *always* immoral, or “wrong”, is false.

We do not get our sense of morality from “the Body of Christ”, or any other religious philosophy.

Yes, I know you were talking about eternal consequences. What I’m saying is that although an atheist doesn’t believe in eternal punishment this in no way motivates him to be immoral, seeing as it is not part of his decisions for his general behavior. I think you’re failing to see this, and that was my point.

Anyway, since it’s the middle of the night in my time zone, I’m off to bed. Nightie night y’all.

Good thing God gave us morals and our consciences, then. Otherwise the world would be a mess.

Prove that science gave us our morals.

@somegreencat

Ok, if you had read my previous comments, you would have noticed that I specifically stated that “I choose to live a moral life because I feel like that is the right thing to do whether God is or is not.” There’s your answer.

“Instead of worrying a lot about getting answers to questions which will take many more centuries to answer, us that are untrained in science should instead try to answer questions that affect our daily lives and the lives of people around us.”

Seems to me, that’s yet another good reason to believe in God. From my everyday experiences, believing in God effects my life and the lives of those around me in a positive way. Never negatively. Not that I say BELIEF has aways been profitable.

And yes, I was indeed an Atheist. I had always thought God existed until certain things began happening, then I began questioning them. Eventually, that led to me coming to the conclusion He didn’t exist. Why would a loving God let such things happen? Why couldn’t I see the answers? So, I decided that He was non-existent. If He loved me, it simply couldn’t be. My faith was quite fickle if you can’t tell. I didn’t “break any laws” or do evil things with wild abandon. And, I know I’m repeating myself, but if I don’t say something specifically, I’m not implying it either. Did I say that all atheist break laws because they have no concept of morality? No. Why? Because I don’t think that because i know it’s not true.

Anyways, believing that all that exists is this life, and having to make the best of it, being your only true judge, not having an eternal life in heaven or hell, and having the unsatiable need to fing logic and reasoning in everything, and believing that my thoughts were inaccessible to a non-existent supreme being pretty much made me an atheist. Any objections? I just never got into evolution that much. I was just focusing on living life at the time, not trying to find the purpose of existence.

“If we presumably have a God-given inner compass for morality….i.e..a “conscience”, then please explain why we need external “Commandments” to be “moral”. ”

– If people know smoking is hazardous to ones health, why do we need all these ’surgeon general’ warnings and all these ‘anti-smoking’ campaigns?

When they were introduced, they weren’t radically new ideas on morality, but reminders on things people already knew, but were necessarily failing to meet.

@ Miguel

When [anti-smoking campaigns and surgeon general's warnings] were introduced, they weren’t radically new ideas on morality

First, I don’t think you can call smoking cigarettes immoral. Stupid, sure, but not immoral.

…but reminders on things people already knew, but were necessarily failing to meet.

People didn’t already know it, that’s the whole point. They may have seen a correlation between coughing, shortness of breath and smoking, but some people actually thought it was good for you. My grandfather used to blow cigarette smoke into my mothers’ ears when she had an earache, and I have heard of other similar folk remedies.

Lucky Strike used to run ads that said their cigarettes were preferred by doctors because they were healthier. This wasn’t an outrageous claim, people bought it.

“First, I don’t think you can call smoking cigarettes immoral. Stupid, sure, but not immoral. ”

– First, I wasn’t saying that smoking cigarettes was immoral. I was implying that even if people knew cigarette smoking was bad for ones health, they do it anyway, thus they have to be constantly reminded of the hazard it promotes to ones health. People need to be reminded all the time – and this was the purpose of the teachings of Jesus and the bible. It wasn’t radically new ideas on morality.

Just like the golden rule, it resonated with a lot of people, because it was already in their hearts and minds to begin with; they already knew it, but they necessarily had to be reminded.

“People didn’t already know it, that’s the whole point. They may have seen a correlation between coughing, shortness of breath and smoking, but some people actually thought it was good for you.”

– I won’t deny that some people still live in the 1940’s and think that smoking is good for them. But the majority of smokers, particularly young people, know smoking isn’t so shabby – but they do it anyway, to look cool or for whatever purpose. And reminding them that it is bad for their health, even if they already knew that, actually works.

“Lucky Strike used to run ads that said their cigarettes were preferred by doctors because they were healthier. This wasn’t an outrageous claim, people bought it.”

– The smoking population probably consists of only a small number of people who think that smoking is actually good for their health. Are you arguing that ‘anti-smoking’ ads were meant only to target them? I seriously doubt that.

“We have empirical evidence that lung cancer is linked to smoking tobacco. Conversely, we do not have any such evidence that “morals” come from biblegod, or any other invisible, conscious creator-beings. ”

– What exactly does that have to do with people who know smoking is dangerous to their health but still smoke and therefore need to be reminded that smoking is bad?

Which was essentially an answer to this statement of yours:

“If we presumably have a God-given inner compass for morality….i.e..a “conscience”, then please explain why we need external “Commandments” to be “moral”.”

It was not an attempt to prove that “morals come from God”. But rather an attempt to explain what you saw as a contradiction in the assertion that ‘morals come from God’. I’m arguing that there is no contradiction.

@Miguel

I wasn’t saying that smoking cigarettes was immoral

Ok. I misunderstood the disjunction you set up.

I was implying that even if people knew cigarette smoking was bad for ones health, they do it anyway…

Point taken.

The smoking population probably consists of only a small number of people who think that smoking is actually good for their health. Are you arguing that ‘anti-smoking’ ads were meant only to target them? I seriously doubt that.

Consists, present tense. You’re right, things are different now. In part, because of the surgeon general’s warnings you have been talking about. I am saying that in the past, the majority of people may have been unaware of the detrimental effects of cigarettes.

I am taking issue with your analogy. You said people already knew (past tense) smoking was bad for them, and they needed to be reminded. I’m saying they most of them didn’t fully comprehend that, so surgeon generals’ warnings and anti-smoking ads were “radically new ideas.”

@ Miguel

Oh, it wasn’t a grammatical error. I wouldn’t have guessed you weren’t a native speaker. It’s just hard to communicate with people on the internet sometimes. : )

Ok, I guess you can change that to eternal consequences for yourself then. Hey, that actually sounds kinda selfish, following God and making decisions that harm your loved ones just so you won’t burn. But I’ve never seen anything in the bible that claimed God would let the famliy of a man/woman of God suffer. Plenty of scripture that says He’ll save the family of the man/woman of God. But then again, I’m referring to a crusty old book that just so happens to be the foundation of Christianity. Which is why theists and atheists will never come to a meeting point.

Francesc,

I wouldn’t argue that morality comes from the ‘bible’

But I believe that morality comes from God.

Whether you are a Christian or a Baal worshiper, your eternal destiny is not based on your circumstance, but of your own volition.

God wants to create a holy and moral people, so if you act morally, then there is nothing to worry about.

God is just and merciful. Christians believe that Jesus died for our salvation. And we also believe that if you accept this sacrifice, God will judge you mercifully, otherwise, God will judge you justly. Me personally, Id rather be judged mercifully than justly.

“You claim that your morality comes from God…would you kill someone if you felt that God told you to? Is there anything that you wouldn’t do if you felt God told you? ”

– If I simply “felt” God was telling me to, I would first have my head examined since I know with all my heart that this isn’t something God would want. But If I, without a doubt, know that God, the creator of the universe was telling me to, then ofcourse I would.

“Can you see how arbitrary a standard that might be — does God want you to do good things because they’re good, or are they good because God wants you to do them?”

-Your parroting the ‘Euthyphro dilemma’, I believe the Divine Command theory answers this perfectly.

Miguel,

Yes, I am repeating it for you, since it’s a perfectly valid question. Please do not accuse me of “parroting” what you refuse to address.

How is Divine Command Theory a good answer to this Dilemma?

God commands it, therefore it is good? You’re still back to square one! You’ve not even started to answer the Dilemma yet.

Just a quick reply to the part about there being no miracles that can’t be scientifically proven before I head off to bed.

Padre Pio could be in more than one place at once. There were other saints who could do things like levitate.

There is blood of Saint Valentine (I believe that’s who it is) that solidifies on his feast day without anyone doing anything to it.

The painting of Our Lady of Guadalupe was not painted by anyone and has been scientifically looked into.

The Eucharist has turned into real flesh during communion before.

I know I was lazy and didn’t put much explanation or sources, but I’m tired and gotta go to bed right now, but I should be on again tomorrow.

Padre Pio was a vampire — he hangs out with Elvis and Pol Pot.

Saint V’s blood is actually liquefied kittens.

Our Lady’s painting is really of Leonardo da Vinci as a woman.

The Eucharist has a nightly show in Vegas.

My, it’s fun to put made-up facts in comments that require proof and sources and existence and such.

No comment to add. None needed.

You read these sites, right? Saw the claims they made that are wholly unsupported and unscientific, right? Saw their biases?

“Such phenomenon [levitation] obviously is a gift given by God to the Mystics of the Catholic Church.” — Site #1

The “evidence” for Padre Pio’s levitation consists of one anecdote with no names and no identifying details and another anecdote by a fellow priest who, it must be said, is not necessarily a trustworthy source — that anecdote, again, has no identifying details and is not corroborated by any other sources. They might as well be stories about The Little Man From Another Place.
————-
The second article is from a Catholic “news” service, has no corroboration or sources, and has no quotes from anyone actually involved. It’s stuffed with phrases like “some say,” “apparently,” “traditionally,” “believed to have,” etc. There’s no proof of anything in that article — not one single person was willing to go on record as attesting to the so-called miracle? Even for such a pro-miracle “news” organization? Strange.
————
The third is, first of all, like the first article in that it appears on a **dedicated fan site** for the so-called miraculous person or deity. The so-called “science” they offer is, again, unsupported by a single source or link or even quote. They, like you, think that simply saying something is true makes it so. The only “source” they offer is that Kodak of Mexico (!) apparently believes that “the image is smooth and feels like a modern day photograph.” Aside from the lack of proof of this assertion, it’s strange to assume that woven fabric can’t be smooth. Regardless, if a smooth piece of fabric constitutes a miracle, I’ve got a whole closet full of ‘em!

The utter recklessness and disregard for truth can be seen in this site’s closing line: “All who have scientifically examined the image of Our Lady over the centuries confess that its properties are absolutely unique and so inexplicable in human terms that the image can only be supernatural!”

Really? All? Or none? I ask because not a single scientist contributed research, evidence, or even a quote to support this fanpage’s assertions.
———-
Finally, the last site is, again, from a hardly unbiased source. Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association? Really? The anecdotes they use to “prove” these “miracles” come from a 1987 book by one Joan Carroll Cruz handily titled Eucharistic Miracles.

The only one of these stories which has an outside source corroboration is the last one, about a 2005 study of a miracle that happened in the 8th century. (Incidentally, all of the “miracles” corroborated by anecdotal “evidence”/a single book by an unbiased source happened 1730 or before. That’s a loooong time for unwritten, oral stories to grow a bit, eh?) The 2005 article is interesting — the scientist found — in 1971 — that there was cardiac flesh in the place where the Eucharist should have been. That is the extent of his findings.

Of course, jayglo, you may, like the believers in the article, insist that the Eucharist transformed into flesh rather than, say, somewhere in the twelve or so centuries between when the alleged “miracle” occurred and when the study was done, perhaps someone somewhere exchanged the two?

The issue with this one isn’t that it’s impossible — I have no problems believing that the contents of the Eucharist container were, in fact, human flesh. I do, however, fail to see proof that the Eucharist magically became human flesh rather than being exchanged for it.
———
I’d believe a miracle if it was corroborated by scientists as such, not as a rare but realistic occurrence. Curing cancer, surviving disaster, etc.? Those aren’t miracles. Solidifying and liquefying blood, etc.? Those don’t stand up to scrutiny — they are unsupported by sources other than those who believe. See the problem?

I’d believe in any miracle if it was independently verified by multiple sources with no particular reason to want it to be true.

The problem with the Big Bang example and related definition of “miracle” is that, frankly, the Big Bang Theory is all about the natural causes of our universe.

Whether you ascribe the explosion to the explosive expansion of super-dense super-hot materials or to the intervention of a deity/supernatural force…that is what makes you see the existence of our universe as a miracle as opposed to a natural phenomenon.

Do you see? It’s not that the Big Bang wasn’t really cool and difficult to explain. It’s not that we dismiss its importance or even its rarity. It’s that there’s not a logical line to draw from “really cool event” to “God did it.”

Does that make sense?

“All things in this universe have a cause. Therefore, there must be a first, uncaused cause.”

Do you understand that, *even if this is true*, it does not imply any attributes about the cause other than being outside the universe?

Are you saying the Abrahamic god is the only possible explanation?

“That does make sense, thank you.
I’m sure you’ve heard this before, but the “super-dense super-hot materials” had to have come from somewhere – God. A creator to have created the beginning of all things. A creator who has no creator of himself. An all-powerful God. In my opinion, that is the only explanation that makes sense.”

People use to say that god was the only one who could heal the sick too – they saw it as the only thing the made sense because of their limited world view – then man discovered penicillin and our view of that changed a bit

A Miracle by definition is an event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

So I would say that the existence of our very universe is a miracle.

You have first to prove the existence of a “supernatural” entity who would bring about said miracles. You then have to prove these alleged miracles themselves. Our existence is not a miracle; it is the result of millions of years of evolutionary biological processes.

Ok, then. The existence of our universe isn’t a miracle, either. It was the result of dense, hot matter expanding.

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

And to your second point: you are the one making the positive claim that a supernatural entity is the “cause” of the creation of the universe. Therefore, it is incumbent upon YOU to:

a) prove the existence of said supernatural entity
b) show how this entity brought this universe into existence

“If you mean “correctly ascribed to a supernatural cause”, this definition is begging the question, because it assumes supernatural causes certainly exist. If you mean “(possibly) mistakenly ascribed to a supernatural cause”, then yes, things happen outside humanly known powers, but they are not evidence for supernatural causes. They are evidence that our understanding of the universe is incomplete. ”

– I made a mistake in saying that no one has ever assumed the universe was a result of a supernatural cause. Ofcourse some people (mostly in the past) have already assumed the universe has eternally existed.

But conventional science (unless I’m misinformed) now argues that time and space had a beginning; all matter and nature had a beginning. So, whatever caused our universe to exist was supernatural because it existed before everything ‘natural’.

And by that assumption, the ‘existence of the universe’ falls under the definition of the word “miracle”.

So, whatever caused our universe to exist was supernatural because it existed before everything ‘natural’.”

No. You are assigning traits where none are implied. Mostly because the word “supernatural” is charged with meaning. “Extranatural”?

At any rate, even if you were absolutely certain there is such a thing as something extranatural, that in no way supports any claims about such an entity, or thing, or process, or whatever. Such as benevolence, say. Or liking it when people kneel and whisper to you, in their head.

“…if we were to use the word ’super natural’ then the creation of the universe falls under the definition of a ‘miracle’.”

No, it falls under *your* definition of a miracle.

“I’m just following the definition here.”

Again, *your* definition.

My goal with “extranatural” was to divest the English word “supernatural” of its semantic connotations.

You can call the existence of our very universe a miracle, if you want, but that is funtionally meaningless. You are absolutely free to define the “beginning of the Universe” as a miracle, and any power that effected it to be “God”, but those ideas are not automatically logically connected to other ideas you label miracles or God. Showing something is internally consistent is not the same as showing it is true.

boomSLANG,

Funny that it is YOU who says I “failed” in defending my faith, when it is YOU who seems to be unable to formulate counter-arguments in the mini debates we’ve had.

“Since you can only guess of the relativism of morality, there is no need of argument of the shifiting your position in the absolute of christianity in divinity. ”

– I’m sorry, I don’t quite get you.

DarkMatter, is it that English is not your first language? Or do you just like being a dark horse?

Miguel continues….” First, how can you grant ‘Christianity is truth’ without granting a God Christians proclaim to be true?”

Either the fact that English is not your first language is really hampering this discussion, or you are being extremely obtuse.(or possibly a bit of both)

Notwithstanding, as is the case with these types of theist vs nontheist discussions—-I, the nontheist, am granting that the “Christian” deity exists for SAKE. OF. ARGUMENT. From there, I take the deity precisely as Christian doctrine defines it, to show that, ultimately, no such deity can/does exist, *as defined*. Otherwise, I could simply sit here and harp on the fact that you have no evidence for your fantastic claims, and thus, there’d be no discussion whatsoever. ‘Get it?

Continues….”But there is a difference between subjectively trying to interpret an ‘objective reality’ and ’subjectively’ trying to interpret an already admitted ’subjective reality’. No matter how you try to defend the latter, if you follow it to its logical end, it is meaningless (it may be evolutionarily successful, but THATS IT.)”

Irrelevent conclusion—the common denominator is “subjectively”. And BTW, who said there necessarily needs to be “more” than being “evolutionarily successful”? The avoidance of unnecessary harm ensures life.

“We can only guess and speculate using our own reasoning as to what constitutes a moral or immoral act. Christianity bypasses moral relativism by allowing us to position ourselves within the context of a divine personality who represents absolute righteousness.”

THERE IS NO “absolute righteousness”, and simply repeating over and over and over and over that there is such a thing, doesn’t make it so.

Once more—is “thou shalt not kill” absolute? No—you must concede that it is not. Also, if “God”, in its supposed “absolute righteousness”, reinstated the kill any person who would lead you away from “the Lord your God” policy(as see in Deut), I highly doubt that you, or any other Christian, would obey such a command. Now, there is a reason for that, and that is because there is a standard that is ABOVE your biblegod’s “righteousness”.

An interesting opinion on my person.

from wikipedia: The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction [or argument from lack of imagination], refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

I am not sure what you’re asking.

I made a minor edit and shouldn’t have, the article describes two different but related concepts (argument from ignorance and argument from personal incredulity):

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (“appeal to ignorance”), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

Penicillin is an example of advances in medicine that disproved “god did it.” It was not intended as an absolute breaking point between the existence/non-existence of doctors.

You understood that perfectly well.

We don’t know if science will some day provide a way to create something out of nothing.

professoryackle:

“Actually, per dictionary.com,

debate = a discussion, as of a public question… involving opposing viewpoints”

Okay, perhaps I should have included the word “formal”, as in, “formal debate”, as that is how both Wikipedia and Merriam Webster describe “debate”. But, frankly I don’t want to “debate” this, thus, I simply accept your gracious correction!

As for “proof”, I’m aware that the word has multiple meanings. I meant, “proof”, as in *absolute* knowledge. To my understanding, there is no “proof”, in an absolute sense, as to the existence/nonexistence of invisible, conscious beings, aka, “God”. But again, I thank you for keeping me in check!

Now—if the one I’m debating would just offer some *evidence*(note, not “proof”) for the assertions he’s making, I would gladly stand corrected, just as I have done for you! Shall we hold our breath? Nah.

Assuming you are right about creating something from nothing, I don’t know.

Not having an answer does not mean god did it.

Yeah – I know what the argument is but I thought you were directing it at my comment, and I was having a hard time seeing how it was applicable. I think I was mistaken, and you were actually directing it at someone else.

Tell me if I’m wrong.

I meant jayglo’s assertion that the only way something can come from nothing is if a divine power created it.

“I, the nontheist, am granting that the “Christian” deity exists for SAKE. OF. ARGUMENT. From there, I take the deity precisely as Christian doctrine defines it, to show that, ultimately, no such deity can/does exist, *as defined*. ”

- And how did you show this Boom? By showing that we cannot get objective morality from the bible or his teachings? Wow, you really showed it then huh?

“Irrelevent conclusion—the common denominator is “subjectively”.”

- No, that may be a common factor, but huge difference between the two! One is an attempt to grasp an objective reality, the other is an attempt to grasp a subjective reality – making the latter MEANINGLESS!

“And BTW, who said there necessarily needs to be “more” than being “evolutionarily successful”? The avoidance of unnecessary harm ensures life.” ”

- Really? You do good because it is evolutionarily successful? So masturbating must be really immoral for you, because it doesn’t promote evolutionary success? Don’t you think that if every man in the world masturbated without sex for 2 years, that that would be less evolutionarily successful than, say, a murderer rampaging for 2 hours? So, I guess you’d rather have the murder rampage?

And, if it is all because of evolutionary success, don’t you think then that we are pre-programmed to have those feelings? If so, you would do good because you were programmed to be inclined for such, so how is that ‘good’? Can we call trees ‘good’ for producing fruit? Hey, they were also, in a way, programmed to do such.

“THERE IS NO “absolute righteousness”, and simply repeating over and over and over and over that there is such a thing, doesn’t make it so. ”

– I wasn’t saying it so it would be true. And you implying that that was what I was doing, simply highlighted your inability to understand what my statement meant. I was showing you how, in the Christian, wordlview, morality became objective.

“Once more—is “thou shalt not kill” absolute? No—you must concede that it is not.”

– Like I said, IT ISN’T!!!

“Also, if “God”, in its supposed “absolute righteousness”, reinstated the kill any person who would lead you away from “the Lord your God” policy(as see in Deut) ”

- Please quote text if you can. I’m sorry, but I’m not familiar with this text. It could have been quoted out of context.

“Now, there is a reason for that, and that is because there is a standard that is ABOVE your biblegod’s “righteousness”. ”

– Uh, no, in your worldview, there is no standard! Everything is subjective remember? If everything is subjective, then why are you claiming ‘moral standards’? Morality doesn’t exist remember? Just evolutionary success, remember?

You mean, I don’t follow it to what *Miguel* thinks the “logical end” is. And who’s to say what that “end” is?

- Why don’t you tell me then, what you think the “logical end” is. Wasn’t it you who explicitly stated that there doesn’t have to be anything more to it than ‘evolutionary success’ ? That is the “logical end” which I was referring to. Are you now denying this?

“Furthermore, even if you insist that I MUST believe that the “logical end” is “survival”, you still have not illustrated how I presumably MUST believe that this is “all that matters””

- Waitaminute.. It was you who said that. I implied it first, and then you adamantly agreed. Here is what you said:

“And BTW, who said there necessarily needs to be “more” than being “evolutionarily successful”?”

isn’t that what you said? I’m confused, should I interpret this statement to mean something else?

“Again, in my view, you are simply projecting the “all or nothing”/”black and white” mentality that is characteristic of Theism…i.e..”if my brand of Theism isn’t true, then everything is meaningless!!!”, on to me and others.”

- Lol! Nice trick, if you could pull it off! I never once insinuated that you should accept my brand of theism or your reality would be meaningless. I thought you knew your strawmen definitions? Take note, the topic being discussed here is ‘morality’, if you were able to prove to me that you viewed morality to be objective, then it doesn’t matter if you worship your foot or Zeus, there would virtually be NO way for me to refute the fact that we are exactly in the same position of subjectively trying to interpret an objective reality.

“To the best of my recollection, I never said that “evolutionary success is *all* that matters.”[emphasis, mine] ”

- Well then, how do you account for humanity’s morality then? Weren’t you arguing that it was an evolutionary characteristic? It doesn’t matter if doing bad things makes you feel yucky, the fact is, in your view, it is an evolutionary characteristic that enables our species to thrive, right? Then, in your worldview, that is all that matters, even if you’d like to deny it. Its funny that you are somewhat denying it, yet have no other counter explanation that would account for morality. Or maybe you have, but I have yet to hear of it.

” True, such a “success” is life-affirming, but to me, it isn’t “all that matters”. I determine what “matters””

- How do you determine it? I understand that it isn’t all that matters to you, but on a grander scale, as a people, it will be all that matters – well, if everyone thinks like you do anyway. Unless, you have a better explanation that seems to be eluding me.

“You keep throwing up the word “meaningless”. Define “meaning”, as in the word “meaningless”, in the context that you are projecting it onto Atheists/Secularists.”

– By the definition of the word, ‘meaning’ means: what is intended to be, or actually is.

“No, I’m admittedly not knowledgable enough to to “explain” all those things. However, that doesn’t mean that the default “explanation” is “God did it!”,
and/or, of a supernatural origin. Non-sequitur.”

- I was essentially arguing for the importance of an objective reality, and such a reality can only seem possible if a God exists. So, no, it isn’t “Non-sequitur”. You really have to familiarize yourself with these fallacies and know when to use them, boom.

“Here’s a wild guess—-for the same reason that we wouldn’t want people whom “we haven’t met from Adam” doing harm to us, or our own families? You know, like, a variation of the “Golden Rule”?….”

- Which, again, seems very superficial and, again, does not answer the question at its root. People living in the Amazon who kill babies, will probably never get to harm you and your family, boom. Oh forget it, it is obvious your not getting this.

“except, we don’t need a “God” to tell us this?”

- No body was arguing we did. Remember the ‘we were created in His divine spark’ argument a few posts ago, hello?

“The feelings in my head are important because they exist. The fact that they are the result of “chemical reactions” is irrelevent to the final result. ”

- Which is why I made the human-tree analogy. Chemical reactions in the tree allow the tree to produce fruit for our hypothetical ‘homeless man’. So the tree is moral then, because, like you said, the “final result” is what is important.

“You are entitled to your opinion. **I** believe it makes good sense, and I don’t believe I’ve misrepresented anything at all about the Christian philosophy.”

- When you say, God suddenly decides that “good things are no longer good” , then yes, I most certainly can say that this is a misinformed perception of Christian Philosophy!

“The language in the doctrine, itself, makes clear that we are untrustworthy and “sinful”, and therefore in need of biblegod to figure out all of the things that we supposedly cannot figure out for ourselves.”

– Does it say that we are inherently “untrustworthy and sinful”? Because if it doesn’t, then that would really undermine your argument now would it?

“Yes, that’s what I’m saying, and I hold to it. Are the things that biblegod, as you say, “reminds us” of, good *because* they’re “good” for humanity?..or are they soley “good” because it’s “God” who is doing the reminding? ”

- Euthyphro Dillema. The Divine Command Theory answers this.

” What I always find interesting, is that “Christians”, themselves, cannot even agree on what the Right “idea” of Christianity is.
When/if you guys figure it out, let us know, okay?”

- Isn’t this predictable. You can’t logically argue what you originally set out to argue for, so you raise some irrelevant points out of no where.

“Why not assume he means “subjective moral standards”? ”

- He was the one who said : “who said there necessarily needs to be “more” than being “evolutionarily successful”? The avoidance of unnecessary harm ensures life.”

subjective by definition is: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject, placing excessive emphasis on one’s own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

Ok, maybe we can use that. But by definition, its only His personal standards, why should we give it much thought?

Miguel: “Ok, maybe we can use that. But by definition, its only His personal standards, why should we give it much thought?”

It’s NOT “only” my “personal” standard, though–that’s where you’re wrong. It’s all (healthy-minded) human beings who are involved in this avoidance of unnecessary harm to one another. That is the standard that is *above* this alleged Divinely-inspired “Standard” you’ve been arguing for. It is ultimately up to “Christians” to interpret the language found in the “Commandments”, and apply it according to how *they* feel(subjective) about a given senario.

“It’s NOT “only” my “personal” standard, though–that’s where you’re wrong. It’s all (healthy-minded) human beings who are involved in this avoidance of unnecessary harm to one another. ”

- Oh, so its the standard of a group of people, so that makes it right? Are you invoking an ad populum fallacy here?

And, what makes you say “healthy minded human beings” all share your “standard”? Do you really think the Nazis were all unhealthy minded? If so, do you have any proof of this? Were the Spartans unhealthy minded too, for leaving some babies out to die?

“That is the standard that is *above* this alleged Divinely-inspired “Standard” you’ve been arguing for. ”

- No, if you grant that a God exists, you cannot put your ’standard, which is basically your ‘opinion’, over the opinion of the creator/designer. Only the creator/designer knows His intention for His creation, all others can only speculate. His opinions are therefor objective.

(This however is not proof of Gods existence)

“It is ultimately up to “Christians” to interpret the language found in the “Commandments”, and apply it according to how *they* feel(subjective) about a given senario. “”

– Your saying Christians subjectively interpret an objective reality. While you are subjectively interpreting an already admitted subjective reality – which is meaningless.

So far the only thing you’ve given me is this:

People do good because goodness is evolutionarily successful. Fine I can very well understand that. My question is, How is doing what your programmed to do, good? ‘Good’ then does not really exist right? Everything we do is morally neutral, what matters is that what we do is “evolutionarily successful”. How is calling you ‘good’ for helping a homeless man different from calling a tree ‘good’ for providing that homeless man with fruit? You and the tree were merely doing what you were programmed to do.

Don’t you think that ultimately the ‘morality of which you speak is merely an illusion? If we are interested in truth and not persisting in an illusion simply because of the negative consequences of rejecting that illusion, we have to admit that there really is no right or wrong. And if no real standard of right and wrong exists, then why bother to try and find it and exert energy trying to convince others that your morality is superior to theirs?

“And if no real standard of right and wrong exists, then why bother to try and find it and exert energy trying to convince others that your morality is superior to theirs?”

You take a “black and white” mentality, which sadly and unfortunately, is typical of the Christians I’ve encountered. If there’s “no real standard of right and wrong”(including, one that comes from the Christian philosophy), that doesn’t necessarily mean that trying to find what works *best* is, as you say, “MEANINGLESS”. The avoidance of unnecessary harm is a good starting point, IMO. Honoring a deity because we believe its judgment is somehow “intrinsically Good”, is to essentially say, “anything goes”. Why?…because of the reasons I’ve given previously. One of which is, “God” could simply decide one day that “Good” things are no longer good, and we’d have to subserviently follow along because we are supposedly too untrustworthy, wreched, and “sinful” to know for ourselves.

Good day Miguel.

“You take a “black and white” mentality, which sadly and unfortunately, is typical of the Christians I’ve encountered. If there’s “no real standard of right and wrong”(including, one that comes from the Christian philosophy), that doesn’t necessarily mean that trying to find what works *best* is, as you say, “MEANINGLESS”. ”

- You don’t follow your assumptions to its logical end, which sadly and unfortunately, is typical of atheists I’ve encountered. If there is no real right and wrong, and everything were subjective, and evolutionary success is all that matters, then Yes, it is all meaningless – You will realize this if you follow this assumption to its logical end.

Your ‘evolutionary success’ explanations is good at explaining how people make judgments about harm and fairness, but still struggles to explain the feelings of awe, transcendence, patriotism, joy and self-sacrifice, which are not ancillary to most people’s moral experiences, but central. The evolutionary approach also leads many scientists to neglect the concept of individual responsibility and makes it hard for them to appreciate that most people struggle toward goodness, not as a means, but as an end in itself.

“The avoidance of unnecessary harm is a good starting point,”

- Very nice words. But these words are but a superficial aspect of your reality. Why should we want other people to avoid doing unnecessary harm to other people we haven’t met from Adam? The feelings of compassion that you have are chemical reactions in your head, why are they important? These are words that sound so good and positive, but follow them to it’s logical end and you’ll see that its only nice to listen to, but not so encouraging at best, and absolutely meaningless at worst.

“IMO. Honoring a deity because we believe its judgment is somehow “intrinsically Good”, is to essentially say, “anything goes”. Why?…because of the reasons I’ve given previously. One of which is, “God” could simply decide one day that “Good” things are no longer good, and we’d have to subserviently follow along because we are supposedly too untrustworthy, wreched, and “sinful” to know for ourselves.”

– Makes no sense at all. Your essentially saying that aligning our standards against moral objectivity would be more useless because God might suddenly decide that “good things are no longer good” – Clearly, you have no idea on what the Christian wordlview teaches, otherwise you wouldn’t make such uninformed claims.

Good day Boom. I am greatful for our little informal discussions.

IMO. Honoring a deity because we believe its judgment is somehow “intrinsically Good”, is to essentially say, “anything goes”. Why?…because of the reasons I’ve given previously. One of which is, “God” could simply decide one day that “Good” things are no longer good, and we’d have to subserviently follow along because we are supposedly too untrustworthy, wreched, and “sinful” to know for ourselves.

yeah, sorry, my fault. I only read the last 2-3 comments :)
I’ll follow here too another of my comments and your answer.

“God wants to create a holy and moral people, so if you act morally, then there is nothing to worry about.”

That’s your opinion. That’s not what it’s said on the bible, so how do you know the will of god? Has him revelated it in any way to you? Don’t think so… What I think is happening here is that you are a moral person, and you believes God has to be good -unsupported claim- so you believes that god will want the same thing that you wants. So you are imposing your moral views over your concept of God. And exactly that is what christianity has been doing for centuries: changing his views of god as his views about morality are changing.

“God is just and merciful”
Another unsupported claim. Maybe god is bad and hatefull; and sadistich. We don’t know.

“And we [christians] also believe that if you accept this sacrifice, God will judge you mercifully, otherwise, God will judge you justly”

I apreciate your point of view here. thanks. But again, that’s what you demand of your god -and that’s what most of the people would demand. I’ve spoken with a lot of christians who believe that i’m going to hell for being an atheist. How do you know they are wrong?
—————————————————————————

Ok, I agree with you that morality is meaningless in any “supernatural” way. There is not a moral code to stick to. All we can do is to come to social consensus about it. We won’t accept killing in our society. Why? Because I don’t want to be killed, so I have to accept that rule and not kill other people.

But i agree with boomslang too, it doesn’t matter if there is not a transcendent reality above “good” and “bad”. I can’t kill because that’s what I have learned (The perversion of the army is that, in order to be able to kill other human beings, they must forget that the other army members are humans too. They are the enemya nd they are different).

So I’m bounded by the morals that the society has forced on me, and I as member of the society am doing the moral code to force upon the new members. That’s how morality works.

I have given an easy explanation -it’s how i understand it, maybe I’m wrong- of how morality came in a naturalistic way. i’ve explained you why you don’t lie often to your parents; why you don’t lie to a person you have just meet in a pub -well, sometimes- it’s an extension of that. patriotism is an extension of the grupal sense, and besides, it’s a very modern extension. It doesn’t appear in our history in his fully sense til 19th century. Love is an extension of the bound within the members of the group. in his romantic sense it may not appear since medieval ages. All of our morality is explainable by naturalistic ways, so why should we imagine it comes from god, a god who does not have any evidence about his existence?

“You don’t follow your assumptions to its logical end, which sadly and unfortunately, is typical of atheists I’ve encountered. If there is no real right and wrong, and everything were subjective, and evolutionary success is all that matters, then Yes, it is all meaningless”

Is there an error in this conclusion?

No, my point is that it is logically consistent. Surely you’re not saying “I don’t like X, therefore X cannot be true”.

I dunno, I think the conclusion that there is no objective meaning is kind of obvious. You said it is your experience that atheists tend not to follow the premises of “there is no external meaning” to its logical end. Perhaps it has just been that you have been unwilling to accept it?

Two posts ago, Miguel said…

“….even if we have knowledge of right and wrong, doesn’t mean we don’t have to be reminded of what is right and wrong. Thats what God was doing; reminding us (commandments)”

When you say that “God” was “reminding us(commandments)”, are you, or are you not, saying/arguing/suggesting that we get our sense of “right and wrong”, via “commandments” from “God”?

Yes, or no?

If “no”, then I have to wonder why you’d say such a thing to begin with. If “yes”, then once more, we do NOT get our sense of “right and wrong” from the bible.

*Note, I’m not disputing that some, if not most human beings, need to be occasionally “reminded” to keep ethics in check. I’m disputing that neither the bible, nor biblegod, remind us.

No, the idea of god is possibly true, but that doesn’t make it certainly true.

@bdemong

“No, the idea of God is possibly true, but that doesn’t make it certainly true.”

Then the same thing applies to evolution. No one has all the “pieces” to God’s “puzzle” or the evolution “puzzle.”

Missing link to atheism: the missing link

Missing link to theism: we can’t see God in physical form

No one insists evolution is certainly true, just that it is extremely probable. As probable as the earth revolving around the sun. You are framing the question in terms of “certainly X, or certainly Y”. I am saying “probably X, probably not Y, Z, A, B, or C”. You are asserting certainty about something you *cannot possibly* be certain about. I cannot prove God does not exist, just as you cannot prove God does exist. I can’t prove Santa Claus does not exist, either, but I can demonstrate the improbability of his existence.

I have not seen any arguments that God is probable that withstand scrutiny. All arguments and evidence I have seen conclude that God is improbable, even ones that set out to show the opposite. Are you aware of any evidence or argument that conclude that God is probable?

Chances are good that the response in your head is “God is improbable, but I have faith he exists anyway”. I contend that this is irrational.

No, that’s great, really. But your hope has no impact on whether or not there is actually something good to eat in the fridge.

…and if I said I’m going to go out to get something to eat, you’re not going to dissuade me with “You don’t need to do that, I hope there is something tasty in the fridge.”

The kiwis are evidence that there is something good to eat in the fridge.

Analogy was a really, really bad idea.

What I should have said instead of drawing an analogy: I know what I’m saying seems like a complicated technicality, but it’s the specific difference between the arguments “There is a God” versus “There is almost certainly no God”… what makes one argument logical and the other illogical.

I am sorry to hear that jayglo.

You are one of the few debaters from your side of the argument that at least tries to present logical and coherent arguments. I don’t agree with most of what you have to say, but that is irrelevant. At least your comments genuinely attempt to answer the questions directed at you, unlike other contributors who just say “it is self evident and if you can’t see it you’re dumb”.

I have re-read the thread and I must confess I don’t see where you feel you are not being respected. If you feel your religious beliefs demand respect because of what they are, then obviously I would vigorously argue against that.

The people on this blog are generally very well behaved and restrained. If you want disrespect then try one of the recommended links to Pharyngula – any one of your comments would be mercilessly shredded in language you wouldn’t hear at the docks leaving you a blubbering mess (what do expect from a bunch scientific academics? :).

I would be interested in hearing what has upset you so, but if you choose not to reconsider your position, then I hope you will at least continue to follow the debates – we can all learn a lot here. Good Luck!

I can’t help but think that jayglo is really saying: “I don’t like that people disagree with me and won’t be persuaded.”

No, he just realizes that he can’t win (seeing as how his premises are faulty, whether he admits it or not). He therefore tries to save face by using the persecution card. He’s not the first, and he won’t be the last.

Read oodunkin’s posts and you’ll see what I mean (that might have been the other thread though)

I second this. It fits the usual pattern:

Theist shows up, says “But-but-but you haven’t considered: …” (Repeats a talking point covered in the “Hundreds of Proofs” post, and raised endlessly by John C, Guggenheim, or other).

Atheists, tiredly, explain that no, that’s not evidence, ask for proof, mock (usually gently at first).

Theist gets huffy, throws more manure at the wall hoping some sticks. Refuses to concede anything in the face of logic or evidence.

Atheists call bullshit.

Theist bitches and whines that the discussion is “disrespectful.”

Atheists say “No–We were just calling your bullshit.”

Theist takes ball and bat and stamps home.

We may not be winning hearts and minds, but we’re certainly winning the debate, if only through attrition.

Ok, Boom. It seems we can argue our points well, but cannot get our them across. Our perception f things are immensely different. I will not try to argue every point you made, but only the important ones.

“Right? uh-huh?….I said that, and how do you equate that question with me saying that “evolutionary success” *is* “ALL THAT MATTERS”???[capitalization, added] Again, this is you, projecting your worldview into the equation.”

– You may have personal opinions on what matters, but those opinions, on a grander scale, are what they are, because you and your species have to thrive. You may think that needlessly decapitating a baby would be galactically evil, but on a deeper level, you feel that way, because nature wants you to want your genes to thrive. So Yes, on a deeper level, evolutionary success is all that matters. Ofcourse, evolution did not make you realize these things so bluntly, because if you knew that all these feelings of compassion were an illusion to keep your species thriving, you would question your own individualism and morality.

“If doing “bad things” makes me feel “yucky”, then for me, that’s incentive enough to NOT do them. Evidentally, that’s not enough incentive for Christians, hence, why they (think they) need extra “prodding”. ”

– We all will probably feel yucky. But, when we both question why we should feel such, you will say brain chemicals, I will say, objective morality.

“Excuse me?….”seem possible”? Who’s to say that the Natural/physical Uni-verse is not the only “objective reality”??? It might not “seem possible” TO YOU, I’ll grant you that.”

- I meant ‘objective morality’.

“The “tree” is not sentient, obviously, so it cannot be “moral”. But if you want to believe it is, that’s your right. ”

- But your sentient feelings are an illusion, in your worldview, which was essentially the point.

“I didn’t ask someone else’s opinion. I want your opinion–*you* answer it.”

- Everything I argued isn’t solely my opinion, but rather an opinion I have which was a result of my studying the works of others. I definitely agree with DTC.

“I “set out” to see some objective evidence from the guests who come here arguing for Christianity’s Truth-claims, in this case, that “morality” is of a “Divine” source, and according to them, if it doesn’t come from their biblegod, all is “MEANINGLESS”. Per usual, I see no such evidence.”

– Perhaps we should leave it at that then, there’s no sense in rehashing previous arguments.