midnight378:


nope. She is not wrong . YOU are wrong. you're taken the typical hijacking of the theory by Christian apologists as true. It is not.
the Big Bang Theory says that something(s) which ALREADY EXISTED, which was at high temperature and density, (no one knows what that was .... but it ALREADY EXISTED, ie it was NOT a "creation event" ) and it expanded ... the Big Bang was the EXPANSIOARY phase, not a beginning of anything.
"Nothing" is not at high temperature and density. SOMETHING was (already) at high temperature and pressure. The Big Bang Theory says NOTHING about the creation or "beginning" of anything.

Sorry Sir,
Our frame of reference is the big bang as it is important to know or measure anything BEFORE the big bang/inflation as SPACE, TIME , MATTER and ENERGY, including All the Laws of Physics and Chemistry with their Fundarmental Constant did not exist?

We were not speaking about BEFORE the big bang/inflation sir

TenQ:

It's good I scare you bad!
May all your demons ever be scared of my mention!

No wonder, response to simple questions throw you off the bridge.

I'm sure you've never heard of the word conscience: let me explain.

It's the little sentinel program God wrote into you to be your first tutor to doing good. It doesn't matter if you are Buddhist, Hindi, Hare Krishna, Muslim or Christian, you have a conscience (an instinct) that rewards you with peace and joy when you do good and withdraws peace and joy from your heart when you do evil.

Even when you finally decided for Atheism, you remember how EMPTY you felt!?

Even in your Atheism, if you've not completely overwritten your programming, you still have a conscience. Don't you!?

nope. Fail again.
consciences are "formed" ... by culture and by experience and by teaching.
All the major theological systems talk extensively about a "well formed" conscience.
how is it you don't know that ?
your opinion that they are somehow innate is false, and even religion agrees with that, and has extensive writing about that.

Maybe besides science you should take Theology 101.

TenQ:

Sorry Sir,
Our frame of reference is the big bang as it is important to know or measure anything BEFORE the big bang/inflation as SPACE, TIME , MATTER and ENERGY, including All the Laws of Physics and Chemistry with their Fundarmental Constant did not exist?

We were not speaking about BEFORE the big bang/inflation sir

i couldn't care less what you were speaking about.
You MUST answer WHAT was at high temperature and high density before the expansionary phase.
You are hijacking the theory to say what it does not say.

High temperature and high density are PHYSICAL PROPERTIES . they are not properties of "nothing".

WHAT WAS AT HIGH TEMPERATURE AND DENSITY ?
(You don't know), and neither does anyone else.
the Big Bang Theory is not about a creation event.

Guy... this is madness:

Logic is very simple
If A>B (Postulate 1)
and
If B>C (Postulate 2)
THEN
C>A (Conclusion)

So is this:

Until they are PROVEN FALSE, the CONCLUSION is TRUE

1000WaysToLive:
You said exactly that. That there is no morality. Did you want to talk about it?


I guess some of us only think things are wrong because they've been programmed to..and not because there is anything really wrong with those things.

That would certainly be the case if morality were subjective, as you believe, or if morality were relative, as many atheists believe.


I'm a moral realist. I don't think and don't argue that morality is subjective -at all-.


You, on the other hand, have insisted in this thread that if morality were subjective, then there wouldn't be anything really wrong with things like rape, murder, incest, necromancy....(still lol-ing). In this same thread...you have insisted that gods moral code is subjective.

Did you want to talk about that?

I agree with you at large.

Let me tell you why I believe that God's moral code for man is subjective with respect to God and Absolute with respect to Man!

1. He doesn't have to tell us the REASON why we shouldn't marry our blood relations (it was legal before the flood). Sabbath law has nothing really to do with man (God could have chosen another day for Sabbath or none at all)
2. There are Moral laws, Ceremonial laws, Laws of Hygiene, and Public laws that God gave per time because of the limitations of the society at that time (law of leprosy).
3. When a law is subjective, it doesn't mean that it has no reasoning behind it. It simply means according to God's Will and purpose.
4. Finally, God's laws are subjective to Him because He has the right and power to change the law according to how it suits Him.



However, even though God's moral laws are subjective to God, it is not meant for God but for man. And such a law becomes OBJECTIVE to man.



An example:
A father tells his son:
"Don't exceed 60km/hr when you take out my car"

The 60km/HR is subject to the father's will (as he could have said 56km/HR). But to the son, 60km per hr is an OBJECTIVE rule.

The father's subjective opinion of 60km/HR is because he felt the son can manage to drive safely even 60km/hr. It was also to protect the son from fatally harming others by his driving. Of course, it is ultimately to protect the son.

That's my take.

TenQ:

See how when their defences are the disarray they start finding just anything to grapple on like a drowning man.

Mary was so young and she has a Fiancé!?

See how reprobate your heart is:!?

At least it's commendable that you recognize it as a myth!

I like how you skirt around specific problems and sink into nonsensical nebulous posts!

You do realize that what you term as "objective morality" is based on your own judgment and interpretation of the bible or whatever god you believe in. There are thousands of different Christian denominations each interpreting the Bible differently and the objective moralities of one denomination's version of god is a different objective moralities than another denomination's and also different than yours.
There are evangelical denominations who believe in beating children per Deut. 21:18 -21. I know, I had to deal with one of these insane groups.
Other deniminations are horrified by this.

There is no such thing as objective morality when you have a god who hides and relies on biased, flawed human beings writing down what he wants people to do!

TenQ:

A System is the hallmark of intelligent design.

A complex system or a simple system?

chryssanthe:


I like how you skirt around specific problems and sink into nonsensical nebulous posts!

You do realize that what you term as "objective morality" is based on your own judgment and interpretation of the bible or whatever god you believe in. There are thousands of different Christian denominations each interpreting the Bible differently and the objective moralities of one denomination's version of god is a different objective moralities than another denomination's and also different than yours.
There are evangelical denominations who believe in beating children per Deut. 21:18 -21. I know, I had to deal with one of these insane groups.
Other deniminations are horrified by this.

There is no such thing as objective morality when you have a god who hides and relies on biased, flawed human beings writing down what he wants people to do!

he claimed that his god put consciences in people.
how is it so many variations of morality exist ?
how is it so many cultures had child sacrifice ?
how is it even the Jews/Hebrews (which is spoken about in the Bible) practiced child sacrifice.
did they not have consciences ?
LOL

Oh wait, I remember. It was the "devil".

THIS has got to be one of the funniest things I have read in a while


I did not feel "empty" when I gained the perspective of atheism.


I felt freed of superstition in all ways. I had escaped the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, and finally also escaped "God". All were just imaginations.

I don't know where you get the inane idea that atheists have no "conscience".

We don't need a "guy in the sky" to tell us what is decent and right regarding others.

If you do need religion to tell you what is right to do, that suggests that you have no internal ethical guidelines yourself and act properly only in fear of some afterlife punishment.

I do actually pity you for that lack.

I don't need a deity to tell me to be kind to my neighbors and family.

Apparently, you do.


Please try to get a real human life and learn to think for yourself...

TenQ:

It's good I scare you bad!
May all your demons ever be scared of my mention!

No wonder, response to simple questions throw you off the bridge.

I'm sure you've never heard of the word conscience: let me explain.

It's the little sentinel program God wrote into you to be your first tutor to doing good. It doesn't matter if you are Buddhist, Hindi, Hare Krishna, Muslim or Christian, you have a conscience (an instinct) that rewards you with peace and joy when you do good and withdraws peace and joy from your heart when you do evil.

Even when you finally decided for Atheism, you remember how EMPTY you felt!?

Even in your Atheism, if you've not completely overwritten your programming, you still have a conscience. Don't you!?

TenQ:

Speak to my response if you can, and if you can't, it's not compulsory as you don't understand what is written

I did, numbnutz. I pointed out that you had uttered a falsehood. Why don't you take your own medicine, you clearly need it more than I do.

1000WaysToLive:
THIS has got to be one of the funniest things I have read in a while


I did not feel "empty" when I gained the perspective of atheism.


I felt freed of superstition in all ways. I had escaped the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, and finally also escaped "God". All were just imaginations.

I don't know where you get the inane idea that atheists have no "conscience".

We don't need a "guy in the sky" to tell us what is decent and right regarding others.

If you do need religion to tell you what is right to do, that suggests that you have no internal ethical guidelines yourself and act properly only in fear of some afterlife punishment.

I do actually pity you for that lack.

I don't need a deity to tell me to be kind to my neighbors and family.

Apparently, you do.


Please try to get a real human life and learn to think for yourself...

he better add Psychology 101, especially the chapter on "projection" to his classes.

TenQ:

How: Big Bang or Inflation of gravitational singularity
When: 13.8billion years ago

You're wrong

One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.

Wikipedia || Big Bang

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZdvSJyHvUU

TenQ:

4. Finally, God's laws are subjective to Him because He has the right and power to change the law according to how it suits Him.

it's bullshit.

according to every theology I've ever read, (and you obviously missed), "God" is an eternal, timeless and unchanging being , BY DEFINITION.
a god that changes it's mind does not meet the definition of a "god".
a real god would be omniscient, and KNOW everything, eternally. If a god needs to change its mind , it ain't no god.

Psalm 90:2
"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God."

How is it you seem to be unaware of the VERY BASICS ?
Are you a Freshman at Biola ?

TenQ:

Have you ever seen an intelligent communication without an intelligent source?

If you go to the beach and you see written on the sand "TenQ likes Near1", will you conclude that the waves or a crab wrote it ?

Whenever you see systems like a House with functional doors, Windows, kitchen and bedroom, do you think that the storm must have done it!

When you see the DNA (a complex library of data and information), you think this was a random coincidence?

What you are asserting is the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything?

No, that's a clearly-erroneous reading of my words. You have a lot of misconceptions about what I am and am not saying. At no point did I say "nothing created everything". I understand that no one in this conversation, yourself included, knows what happened "prior" to the Big Bang. Just so we're clear, I doubt we will, or even can, ever know. So don't impute to me views I don't hold, okay?

You also seem to lack an even basic understanding of evolution by natural selection. The Watchmaker argument relies upon human amazement and wonder, but it is not a solid foundation for an argument. For that, you'll need to learn about what possibilities exist aside from your magic sky dude is is both the most morally perfect source of morality and the most prolific killer in all history, to believe your Bible.

I'm uninterested in your rehashing arguments I encountered in school decades ago. Go read The Blind Watchmaker or The Panda's Thumb for some evolutionary information. Go read some Stephen Hawking for information about how the laws of the universe behave in an infinite-gravity environment (hint: they don't).

TenQ:

A System is the hallmark of intelligent design.

You ever watch water draining out of a bathtub? It's very systematic, and yet there's no intelligence behind it. It's simply a function of gravity and the Coriolis force.

Have you ever seen crystals form? They're quite organized, but there's no intelligence guiding that formation; instead, it's a function of the location of open valences inside the lattice of atoms or molecules.

So no, a system, or any other example of order, does not necessarily bespeak intelligent design.

1000WaysToLive:


Guy... this is madness:



So is this:

Attempting to reason with TenQ is the same as attempting to teach a pigeon how to play checkers - the faculty for learning doesn't exist.

There's a correlation shaping up here: the greater the vacancy of reason, the more some witless god occupies the empty space. And here we are at hundreds of posts with, so far, none venturing an actual answer to my OP: How would absence of a god make a believer's life different? What does a god add that cannot be lived without?

In my case, whatever a god added back when I uncritically believed there was such a thing had no importance. It was the removal of a god that made living more positive.

TenQ:


You can't beat logic: only if the postulates are wrong can the conclusion be invalidated

Show logically or scientifically that infinite regress of cause and effect is possible?


Time, Space, Matter and all the laws of Physics occured simultaneously at/after big bang.
You know the implication!?

It means that however we try Scientifically, we cannot probe beyond (before) the big bang.

The Uncaused First cause must of course be beyond (before/ the big bang) meaning that He cannot be subject either to the laws of physics nor be of material/matter origin.

The Uncaused First cause is an ENIGMA!

totally false . There are MANY logics ... the fact you don't know about ALL of them is not my problem. Clearly you know only one.
You have to establish that the ONE logic you are using applies to the situation you are analyzing.
Many of the known logical systems, (which you obviously know nothing about), while being perfectly internally consistent, do not obtain in reality.
you also don't know that your one logic applies to reality before/apart from THIS universe. It's an unsupported assumption. All you know about is 5 % of this universe . Nothing else.

Deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is a type of reasoning that uses formal logic and observations to prove a theory or hypothesis. ...
Inductive reasoning. ...
Analogical reasoning. ...
Abductive reasoning. ...
Cause-and-effect reasoning. ...
Critical thinking. ...
Decompositional reasoning.
... and many others.

there is no implication , as "something" was at high temperature and density, and both of those are PHYSICAL properties.
You're wrong about the Big Bang , and what can be known from it.

midnight378:


totally false . There are MANY logics ... the fact you don't know about ALL of them is not my problem. Clearly you know only one.
You have to establish that the ONE logic you are using applies to the situation you are analyzing.
Many of the known logical systems, (which you obviously know nothing about), while being perfectly internally consistent, do not obtain in reality.
you also don't know that your one logic applies to reality before/apart from THIS universe. It's an unsupported assumption. All you know about is 5 % of this universe . Nothing else.

Deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is a type of reasoning that uses formal logic and observations to prove a theory or hypothesis. ...
Inductive reasoning. ...
Analogical reasoning. ...
Abductive reasoning. ...
Cause-and-effect reasoning. ...
Critical thinking. ...
Decompositional reasoning.
... and many others.

there is no implication , as "something" was at high temperature and density, and both of those are PHYSICAL properties.
You're wrong about the Big Bang , and what can be known from it.

All you needed to do was to falsify the logic not cry about what is not

If a moral code is subjective, there's nothing really wrong with things like incest, rape, murder, what have you.

Is your gods moral code subjective?

Is there nothing that's really wrong with any of that?

As far as having reasons. So what? Crazy ex's that slash tires have their reasons too.

What is that supposed to have to do with objective morality?

TenQ:

I agree with you at large.

Let me tell you why I believe that God's moral code for man is subjective!

1. He doesn't have to tell us the REASON why we shouldn't marry our blood relations (it was legal before the flood). Sabbath law has nothing really to do with man (God could have chosen another day for Sabbath or none at all)
2. There are Moral laws, Ceremonial laws, Laws of Hygiene, and Public laws that God gave per time because of the limitations of the society at that time (law of leprosy).
3. When a law is subjective, it doesn't mean that it has no reasoning behind it. It simply means according to God's Will and purpose.
4. Finally, God's laws are subjective to Him because He has the right and power to change the law according to how it suits Him.



However, even though God's moral laws are subjective to God, it is not meant for God but for man. And such a law becomes OBJECTIVE to man.



An example:
A father tells his son:
"Don't exceed 60km/hr when you take out my car"

The 60km/HR is subject to the father's will (as he could have said 56km/HR). But to the son, 60km per hr is an OBJECTIVE rule.

The father's subjective opinion of 60km/HR is because he felt the son can manage to drive safely even 60km/hr. It was also to protect the son from fatally harming others by his driving. Of course, it is ultimately to protect the son.

That's my take.

Near1:


You ever watch water draining out of a bathtub? It's very systematic, and yet there's no intelligence behind it. It's simply a function of gravity and the Coriolis force.

Have you ever seen crystals form? They're quite organized, but there's no intelligence guiding that formation; instead, it's a function of the location of open valences inside the lattice of atoms or molecules.

So no, a system, or any other example of order, does not necessarily bespeak intelligent design.

Khai!
You fall my hand big time. Systematic is not the same as System.

A system is a functional regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole device or organism or equipment.

Example:
A car consists of hydraulics, wheels, transmission,steering, internal combustion engine, brake etc. Each of the constituents may also even be complete systems on their own such like the breaking system may consist of the hydraulic, pump, pipes, brake calipers, break pads etc

With respect to creation (from God) you also have several systems Your Eyes is a system consisting of iris, cornea, pupil, etc.
You are a system consisting of your nervous system, digestive system, muscle and skeletal system etc.
A bacteria consists of systems for digestion, excretion, reproduction etc.

When you see a cave with living room, bathroom, kitchen, master bedroom each with doors and windows, do you conclude that an erosion made it?

Near1:


No, that's a clearly-erroneous reading of my words. You have a lot of misconceptions about what I am and am not saying. At no point did I say "nothing created everything". I understand that no one in this conversation, yourself included, knows what happened "prior" to the Big Bang. Just so we're clear, I doubt we will, or even can, ever know. So don't impute to me views I don't hold, okay?

You also seem to lack an even basic understanding of evolution by natural selection. The Watchmaker argument relies upon human amazement and wonder, but it is not a solid foundation for an argument. For that, you'll need to learn about what possibilities exist aside from your magic sky dude is is both the most morally perfect source of morality and the most prolific killer in all history, to believe your Bible.

I'm uninterested in your rehashing arguments I encountered in school decades ago. Go read The Blind Watchmaker or The Panda's Thumb for some evolutionary information. Go read some Stephen Hawking for information about how the laws of the universe behave in an infinite-gravity environment (hint: they don't).

I am not speaking about evolution.

Evolution starts with a complex system and attempts to see how changes in the genetic information results in changes in the physiological, anatomical etc changes in the organism into something different. No sir. I am not speaking about evolution.

The question I asked was:
Is it possible to see a complex system without an intelligent designer behind it?

You see your name written on the beach sand, will you conclude that a crab wrote it?

Very simple question!

midnight378:

it's bullshit.

according to every theology I've ever read, (and you obviously missed), "God" is an eternal, timeless and unchanging being , BY DEFINITION.
a god that changes it's mind does not meet the definition of a "god".
a real god would be omniscient, and KNOW everything, eternally. If a god needs to change its mind , it ain't no god.

Psalm 90:2
"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God."

How is it you seem to be unaware of the VERY BASICS ?
Are you a Freshman at Biola ?

People read to comprehend, yours is reading to misinterpret.

Does God have the right to change His laws to man?
Has God ever changed His laws to man?

If your answer is yes to both, then Laws to God are Subjective as he could change them if He wants.

A miracle for your information is God SUSPENDING physical laws for a purpose. The Laws are Subjective to Him BUT objective to you.

If you have read a little slowly, you would have noted that I used the eclxample of Government too.

The legal age of 18 is subjective rule by the government. They could make it 16,17 or 21 if they wanted. The rule is subjective to them but to the citizens, the same law is OBJECTIVE to them. You can't claim that a 17year 11 month girl gave you consent for sex and the law will not treat you as a rapist.

Hope you understand now!

Tamaratonye1:





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZdvSJyHvUU

Half knowledge is very dangerous
1. Confirm if Time, Space and Matter were created simultaneously
2. If time, space and matter were created simultaneously, confirm the time.

Note:
Before the big bang/inflation time, space and matter did NOT exist!

Tamaratonye1:

I did, numbnutz. I pointed out that you had uttered a falsehood. Why don't you take your own medicine, you clearly need it more than I do.

A cultured lady would point out the falsehood, wouldn't she?

midnight378:

I understand it. I reject it .

You rejected a valid study already published in a peer review journal which has been cited severally by journalist and other scientists from different parts of the world investigating the same thing ? Well, you are free to reject it if you think you know better than those that did the study . But you have not provided any valid reason why it should be rejected, you just expressed your personal feelings. That's all.

I don't care what you have cherry-picked to be beneficial... There is a reason 10 % of Americans are EX-CATHOLICS .
they hate the bullshit they were taught and enslaved them as children. Utilitarianism is a slippery slope.

If you had read my initial response to the op, you would not be dragging me into all of the above, Ex Catholics, Utilitarianism etc
Theist, without evidence a god exist, are also finding fulfilment in their lifes and not only atheist. That's what I try to highlight at the beginning and not what you think.

Moreover,I have already mentioned that it can be good and bad , so why the false accusation of Cherry picking? I have experienced religious trauma from my involvement in a religious group in the past. So I know what it is, but in spite of the unpleasant experience, there was still some benefits I enjoyed at that time. Today, my experience has helped me to understand better why some people would remain in any religious group no matter what you say about God or gods not existing. They won't listen to you until it starts going bad.

I am not pro religion as you think.

Another thing I would like to highlight here, which is the most important , is that religious beliefs are not founded only on what is contained in any religious text alone, but also on the personal experiences of the faithful. Those who deriving any form of benefit or are hoping to derive any form of benefit, would defend it,and don't care if the Bible or Koran contain any lies, fairy tales or inconsistences,. They would find a way to make it make sense.

If you focus only on criticizing their God or gods, while ignoring their personal experiences ,you would be talking to yourself. It would be like trying to convince a young lady from a poor home married to a very wealthy man to abandon the marriage because the man is too old for her. She won't listen to you.

BTW, who tells you that religious practices can't provide real benefits. These days some atheist are engaged in meditation, a religious practice from yoga, to starve of depression and take charge of their minds.

So what are you really talking about? If you think meditation doesn't offer any real benefits, then my friend, you're ignorant. The practice finds scientific support .It has been shown to offer real benefits to the human brain.

OK, I think I know your problem. Your atheism is founded only on the two popular false religious construct, the abrahamic religion.

And because of this, the only thing you can think of when the word, religion,is mentioned is prayers, Gods,angels, devils, Ex catholics, and religious crusades.

There are religious systems that are almost atheistic with practices that offer real benefits.
So, for someone who's a Buddhist, all your ranting about the evil of religion and the damaged it has caused is your own cup if tea.

There has been as much evil perpetrated by religion by those who claim THEIR religious truth is THE religious truth as anything else.
Society as "theocracy" is as dangerous an anything imaginable . we've seen the results of that crap.
We know what religion is and the effects of that bullshit are all around us ..
You're fooling no one. https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/ro...i8QAvD_BwE.

Your religious education is very limited. The two abrahamic religion is not the only ones that exist. So, I am not fooling no one, but talking from a well informed position unlike you.

taking illegal drugs produces good effects also

It is very desperate of you to equate religious practices; meditation or prayers, with taking illegal drugs. What do you smoke? weed or ? Try to edit your thoughts next time.
...

It's not the belief system . It's not religion.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna40549161
It's being a part of a close-knit community, that meets regularly.

"It's not their spirituality, belief in heaven, or even the ritual act of praying or going to a house of worship that leads the pious to happiness. Rather, the study found, it's the close friends people gain through their religions that makes a difference.

How is this different from some of the things I already discussed? Whatever anyone is benefiting or not benefitting boils down to the individual involved; their level of acceptance of the religious beliefs , what they make of it and level of involvement, and not that some magic suddenly happens once you become a member . It is not the object of belief that makes it work, but the individual belief that it would work. However, certain meditative practices has nothing to do with belief, if not, it won't be effective for outsiders who engage in in it.

The findings suggest that forging close bonds with people over mutually shared and meaningful interests might boost quality of life for anyone, religious or not. But there's something about being part of a congregation in particular that seems to build a sense of community and lead to fulfillment for many people."

Do you even take the time to read any of my replies? I have said atheist can also benefit the same if they can find themselves in similar environment.

Just read very well the last part of what you took from the article to see that being part of a congregation offers much more for some people than any other group out there.

do any of your studies have a proper control group ?

You really don't know your science very well, if not you shouldn't be asking this kind of question. It was rigorously done, and moreover the findings has been published in a peer review journal if you really understand the significance of that.

The article you referenced contains a study report that is not rigorously done. It made use of data that is drawn from a particular region, USA. So ,you can't use it to universalize about the benefits of religious practice or systems everywhere.

1000WaysToLive:
THIS has got to be one of the funniest things I have read in a while


I did not feel "empty" when I gained the perspective of atheism.


I felt freed of superstition in all ways. I had escaped the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, and finally also escaped "God". All were just imaginations.

I don't know where you get the inane idea that atheists have no "conscience".

We don't need a "guy in the sky" to tell us what is decent and right regarding others.

If you do need religion to tell you what is right to do, that suggests that you have no internal ethical guidelines yourself and act properly only in fear of some afterlife punishment.

I do actually pity you for that lack.

I don't need a deity to tell me to be kind to my neighbors and family.

Apparently, you do.


Please try to get a real human life and learn to think for yourself...

Just to prove that you are terribly ignorant, show me where I said Atheists have no conscience.

All these just to escape the questions you should have answered!? SMH!!

chryssanthe:

A complex system or a simple system?

A complex system.

It is easy to be vague with overly simple systems.

A house as a system is complex enough with a roof, doors, windows, water supplies, drainage, access roads.

A bacteria is a complex system as a Car is a complex System.

A snow crystal is an overly simple system (even though functionality of the parts is debatable)


The more complex a system is, the higher the probability it is designed and built by a highly intelligent being.
Do you agree or disagree with this?

chryssanthe:


I like how you skirt around specific problems and sink into nonsensical nebulous posts!

You do realize that what you term as "objective morality" is based on your own judgment and interpretation of the bible or whatever god you believe in. There are thousands of different Christian denominations each interpreting the Bible differently and the objective moralities of one denomination's version of god is a different objective moralities than another denomination's and also different than yours.
There are evangelical denominations who believe in beating children per Deut. 21:18 -21. I know, I had to deal with one of these insane groups.
Other deniminations are horrified by this.

There is no such thing as objective morality when you have a god who hides and relies on biased, flawed human beings writing down what he wants people to do!

You are still clutching on straws to stay afloat.

What Christians have always taught is that GOD is the Source of Objective Morality for Man.

Every law is SUBJECTIVE to GOD Himself as He reserved the right to set such as He wills.

Even if you hate God enough to disagree with it, let me give you an example from the Government.

Every law in a Country is Subjective to the Government.
Note: Remember that there was a time when putting on of face mask was mandatory.

However, every law set by the Government is an objective law to the citizens.
Note:
Why do Nigerian drivers drive on the right of the road rather than on the left? FYI We used to drive on the left like in Britain and Japan in Nigeria.

Slow down and comprehend this : it is a simple concept.

1000WaysToLive:
If a moral code is subjective, there's nothing really wrong with things like incest, rape, murder, what have you.

Is your gods moral code subjective?

Is there nothing that's really wrong with any of that?

As far as having reasons. So what? Crazy ex's that slash tires have their reasons too.

What is that supposed to have to do with objective morality?

I believe I am not making myself clear and explicit.

1. God's moral laws for man is Objective for man.
The implication:
We can't modify God's law, not explain it away. God's law of morality binds us absolutely

2. God's moral law for man is Subjective to God.
The implication:
God can modify the laws he gives you man (even though He seldom does that). God has every right to change His law to man. God is NOT subject to His own laws.
As an example:
A Miracle is the suspension of the Natural laws set by God for a purpose.

I hope I've made myself clearer now!

TenQ:

Khai!
You fall my hand big time. Systematic is not the same as System.

A system is a functional regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole device or organism or equipment.

The water is made of regularly interacting molecules. The crystal developing, ditto. This is you trying to deploy semantics to obscure your absolute lack of evidence for your deity. This is a particularly inane reply.

When you see a cave with living room, bathroom, kitchen, master bedroom each with doors and windows, do you conclude that an erosion made it?

When you're appealing to hypotheticals as "evidence" to support your claim, that pretty much tells me you do not have any real evidence. The real systems here on Earth that you claim point to your god's existence are fairly well-explained by our current knowledge without including what Occam would call your needless entity.

Please tell me you have something more thoughtful than this tripe. I'm finding this conversation tiresome, as if I got stuck back into college with someone who doesn't belong there.

TenQ:

I am not speaking about evolution.

Of course you are; you mentioned DNA.

Evolution starts with a complex system and attempts to see how changes in the genetic information results in changes in the physiological, anatomical etc changes in the organism into something different. No sir. I am not speaking about evolution.

Good because you clearly don't know your ass from third-base about it.

The question I asked was:
Is it possible to see a complex system without an intelligent designer behind it?

Yes, and I've pointed out several examples, to which you run to a dictionary and erroneously claim my examples don't fit. Now you wish to mention DNA as intelligent design but refuse to consider any other possible explanation. I don't care for dishonest conversation.

You see your name written on the beach sand, will you conclude that a crab wrote it?

No. I also would not assume that an invisible, all-knowing, all-powerful, outside-the-universe psychopath wrote it there. You know what I'd do? I'd do what you and so many other believers seem incapable of doing; I'd say "I don't know how that got there" and start looking into it. Quit flogging Paley's tired old talking-point. If you cannot see systematic complexity without seeing god, I'd suggest you pull your head out of your ass and look around.

Very simple question!

How very apt.

It's a stupid question that demonstrates how afraid of uncertainty you are.

Tamaratonye1:
At your discretion -

You awaken tomorrow to find headlines around the world: Science has definitively proven that no god exists - anywhere in the universe. All the religious leaders concur.

How would your life be different?

Would you lose your job? Would your friends abandon you, or would you abandon friends? In what ways would how you spend your time change? Would your expectations for your future change - for the next day, next week, next month, next year, next decade? Would you suddenly lose talents?

Etc.

Brushing the question aside by claiming such a proof is impossible only ducks the question. Millions of atheists around the world enjoy fulfilling lives without needing a god in it, while many millions cannot envision a life without a god in it. What is it that a god adds that cannot be lived without?

Salvation (Mokṣa) is liberation of soul from the fascination to the worldly bonds. Close union (Sāyujya) is the tremendous attraction to God. First Mokṣa or Sāyujya?, is the question. Both are not mutually interdependent. Sāyujya is the main and sole aim of all the Spiritual effort. First is Sāyujya and Sāyujya is the entire goal. Once Sāyujya comes, Mokṣa is a spontaneous by-product. Mind can be attached to one God or multiple world only.
Mind can’t attach itself to both because the true attraction or real love or pure devotion can exist either with God or world. Of course, in the path of Spiritual effort, both the bonds co-exist. As the devotee is progressing in the Spiritual path, the bond with God is strengthened more and more and the bond with world is proportionally weakened more and more.
If you compare the starting and the ending points of Spiritual journey, in the starting point, the bond exists with the world only and in the ending point, the bond exists with God only. In between these two points, both bonds exist simultaneously with varying strengths during the journey.
In the initial state of Spiritual journey, an effort is to be put up to leave the worldly bonds and to attach to the bond with God. In this initial state, one has to try for Mokṣa from worldly bonds and Sāyujya with the bond of God. In this state, Jesus told that one shall hate the worldly bonds, which indicates the effort of the devotee to hate the worldly bonds. Here, the word “hate” indicates only a temporary detachment from the worldly bonds.
Jesus fixed the highest goal in this effort so that at least people will be successful in detaching from the worldly bonds temporarily. If the temporary detachment itself is suggested as the goal, the devotee will not be able to succeed even to get a trace of detachment. Such detachment from the worldly bonds is very essential in order to find time to attach with God through Spiritual meetings etc. There must be some effort to attain Sāyujya with God and to do this effort, some detachment from the worldly bonds is essential to find time to devote oneself to God.
Go to the following website and read the divine knowledge from there,


-By Shri Datta Swami


www.universal-spirituality.org


Universal Spirituality for World Peace