TenQ:

1. God's moral laws for man is Objective for man.

Rejected. Existential fallacy, because, existence of your god not yet demonstrated. Also, unsupported assertion.

TenQ:

God's law of morality binds us absolutely

Rejected. People break your alleged god's laws every minute of the day, all around the world. No "binding" demonstrated.

TenQ:

God is NOT subject to His own laws

Then why should we take them seriously?

TenQ:

A Miracle is the suspension of the Natural laws set by God for a purpose.

Unsupported assertion. I have never seen any credible evidence for miracles.

TenQ:

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

No, that's a failing mark in Primary 6 math, lol.

TenQ:

As for bestiality, it is highly subjective if you need no permission from an animal to kill and eat it.

My concerns were not for the well-being of the animal but rather that of society as a whole. No smart society allows potential rapists to start with animals and work their way up.

TenQ:

BTW one of the conditions is that it poses no harm to the society. Would it still be wrong?

And I am stating that there can be no circumstances where bestiality poses no harm to society, so that condition is simply silly. You might as well ask if murder would be aceptable if it didn't harm society. It makes as much sense.

TenQ:

Is there no UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything that exist?
You evaded the question:

I tried to tell you that the question likely makes no sense. You are asking "What is the cause of causality?" which is slightly sillier than wondering what the weight of your shadow is.

TenQ:

Logically, infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible. It has to terminate somewhere and that is the where the Uncaused First Cause of Everything is waiting

Except that "uncaused causes" are as irrational and impossible as infinite regress. This should indicate that your "simple logic" has failed under non-trivial circumstances and that you're going to need something a little more robust. Instead, you've taken an obvious mistake, given it a name, and granted it dominion over you.

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!?

Sorry, but no. It's an evolved instinct upon which later social development is based as you grow.

You're a social animal descended from other social animals. Your ancestors survived by developing instincts against anti-social behaviours and toward pro-social behaviours. You inherited these instincts. You can see this in very young children who, despite being very cute, are a bunch of little sociopaths.

TenQ:


Mary was so young and she has a Fiancé!?

Possibly an arranged marriage, with the ceremony and consummation to occur at a later date.

Regardless, this does not eliminate the problem of your evil little god-thing forcing itself upon her - with that kind of power imbalance, it's coercion rather than consent - the divine equivalent of holding a gun to someone's head.

TenQ:

A complex system.

-snip-

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?

How do you measure how complex a system is?

TenQ:

1. God's moral laws for man is Objective for man.

BTW, I'm willing to bet that you can't name a single objective moral. I'm doubly willing to bet that you can't name one that wasn't violated thrice in your "holy" book.

TenQ:

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!

Can you quote an authority on the matter who believes as you do? Don Lincoln conducts research in particle physics at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, and was an adjunct professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame, although he is no longer affiliated with the university. You've just contradicted him on a subject on which he is an authority.

I hope you've got something better than this lame rebuttal up your sleeve, though I'll bet dollars to donuts you don't. We don't know if time, space, and matter were created simultaneously. The universe existed at the time of the big bang. We can't go far enough back in the history of the universe to answer the question you ask. That you even ask it shows that you are buttfuckingly ignorant about the subject. Care to provide further demonstration of your deficient schooling, low intellect, and just general failings on every subject that you've chosen to address here?

TenQ:

...A Miracle is the suspension of the Natural laws set by God for a purpose...

---

In the entirety of recorded history to the present minute what recognizable miracle has ever occurred, and been positively proven and documented as such? There aren't any. There are innumerable claims that such and such was a miracle. But no proofs.

Now will there ever be any? To be able to ascertain that something occurred outside natural law requires understanding everything about natural law, so as to be able to exclude it from the occurrence. Acquiring that completeness of knowledge is impossible since, among many other barriers, it would require real-time inspection and monitoring of every astronomical body in the universe across its full lifetime from the beginning of time to the end of time, down to the sub-atomic level, and collating the findings continuously. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the speed of light already put that project out of reach, as well as other practical logistical infeasibilities. Fiction is crammed full of miracles, but they're all - uh - fiction.

I'd guess posters the likes of TenQ believe they'd be able to recognize a miracle. It'd be something they'd personally experience beyond their own capacity to explain. It would never occur to them that others could easily explain it, or that with 2 minutes of research they'd see the explanation themselves.

In fact, TenQ hilariously bungled up an absurdly simple syllogism trying to show how syllogisms work, but let's try some inference here:

Premise 1. Inexplicable phenomena occur around the globe and in the cosmos so frequently their likelihood of occurrence is (and always will be) 1:1.

Premise 2. Every formerly inexplicable phenomenon whose explanation has been ascertained has found explanation in natural law, or natural law revised in new light of the phenomenon. Never has any explanation required invocation of natural law disruption by a supernatural agent. Never

Inference: The next inexplicable phenomenon will likely have its explanation in natural law (or not yet described natural law) to a likelihood approaching 1:1

TenQ:

People read to comprehend, yours is reading to misinterpret.

It's "misinterpret" . You forgot to say how.

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

No if they're objective .
Not if your god meets the definition of a god.
There are no gods.
You have to demonstrate that first.

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

The answer is no to both . your answer is meaningless drivel.

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

actually no . ALL Biblical Scholars say miracles are totally natural events in which a non-believer see nothing unusual, and a believer sees the hand of god operating . As I said the VERY BASICS escape you.

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

if you had written a little slowly you would not have written "eclxample". What ? you're so uneducated you can't use a spell checker ?

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.

Nope , your distinctions are irrelevant.
You are totally ignorant of science, religion, history, ethics, the Bible, and morality .
Good luck to you .

TenQ:

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

You wish.
the POINT was and is that you have not demonstrated the logic you chose to use applies to what you know nothing about ... the environment in which the gods exist . You know nothing about that (potential) environment, or which of the many logics apply to that reality ... Dr. Sean Carroll schooled WL Craig about this in their debate, and Craig had no answer. i never expected you, ignorant of all the fields you know nothing about, would have any answer to it . Thanks for proving me correct.

https://www.haverford.edu/sites/default/...reason.pdf

TenQ:

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?

highly complex systems have been observed to have evolved, (and replicated) with no designer .
Many highly complex systems, (for example human bodies and their components) have been shown to be very poorly designed .....
Yet another field of your ignorance.

YOU SAID: "The rule is subjective to them but to the citizens, the same law is OBJECTIVE to them"

Still not what that means.


YOU SAID:
"Hope you understand now"

I understand, that you've misunderstood.

I also think you're missing an opportunity here, to become familiar with the language of realism - of objectivity.

I'll ask again.

Do you think that a moral code being subjective means that there's nothing really wrong with [insert monstrous things here] or..as I suspect, do you think that there really is, and you're just not properly communicating yourself?

TenQ:

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!

Crystal clear


I'm not interested in laws like that - moral or legal

And you've already explained that the assumption of such laws is unwarranted, delusional, and incorrect.

TenQ:

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:


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

Yes
Ant hills, bee hives , the Federal Government.

TenQ:

Governments can be wrong. In fact government can make laws against morals.
Whatever their subjective opinion of laws are become binding and objective to the citizen.

As a member of the communist party in China, tell them you are a Christian or Muslim and see what will happen to you. The Chinese or North Korean Communist Party is exclusively ATHEISTIC!

Governments are composed (according to you) of people with consciences . what the hell happened ?
you failed to address the other groups mentioned.

1000WaysToLive:
YOU SAID: "The rule is subjective to them but to the citizens, the same law is OBJECTIVE to them"

Still not what that means.


YOU SAID:
"Hope you understand now"

I understand, that you've misunderstood.

I also think you're missing an opportunity here, to become familiar with the language of realism - of objectivity.

I'll ask again.

Do you think that a moral code being subjective means that there's nothing really wrong with [insert monstrous things here] or..as I suspect, do you think that there really is, and you're just not properly communicating yourself?

You are making no sense here.

However about if an objective law can be wrong (if I get you correctly).

It's all about Design and Purpose of the Custodian/Owner/Manufacturer of the people concerned.
Example:
The maker of an internal combustion engine says use Petrol Only as fuel?

Is he (the manufacturer) wrong?

Does it mean that one cannot use other fuel type such as Butane, Alcohol or Kerosene?

The question truely is:
Was the engine designed to use alternate fuel? And
Is it in the best interest of the engine to use alternate fuel?

The manufacturer cannot in that sense be wrong!

Can the Government be wrong in giving objective laws to the people?

midnight378:


highly complex systems have been observed to have evolved, (and replicated) with no designer .
Many highly complex systems, (for example human bodies and their components) have been shown to be very poorly designed .....
Yet another field of your ignorance.

Evolution is a complex system morphing with time into another complex system.

midnight378:


You wish.
the POINT was and is that you have not demonstrated the logic you chose to use applies to what you know nothing about ... the environment in which the gods exist . You know nothing about that (potential) environment, or which of the many logics apply to that reality ... Dr. Sean Carroll schooled WL Craig about this in their debate, and Craig had no answer. i never expected you, ignorant of all the fields you know nothing about, would have any answer to it . Thanks for proving me correct.

https://www.haverford.edu/sites/default/...reason.pdf

It is easy to falsify a logic that is not sound: be my guest and stop beating about the bush

midnight378:

It's "misinterpret" . You forgot to say how.


No if they're objective .
Not if your god meets the definition of a god.
There are no gods.
You have to demonstrate that first.



The answer is no to both . your answer is meaningless drivel.


actually no . ALL Biblical Scholars say miracles are totally natural events in which a non-believer see nothing unusual, and a believer sees the hand of god operating . As I said the VERY BASICS escape you.



if you had written a little slowly you would not have written "eclxample". What ? you're so uneducated you can't use a spell checker ?



Nope , your distinctions are irrelevant.
You are totally ignorant of science, religion, history, ethics, the Bible, and morality .
Good luck to you .

You can't force your definition and whims on God's nature and moreover an objective law is not binding over the giver of the law as to him, it is subjective.

If the claim of God as omnipotent is true, by your claims, he should be bound by laws He created (against His nature)!?

Sorry sir. The explanation is solid enough. A law set by a government is subjective to the government but objective to the citizens! If it is difficult for you to comprehend this, too bad as you are beyond help

Tamaratonye1:

Can you quote an authority on the matter who believes as you do? Don Lincoln conducts research in particle physics at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, and was an adjunct professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame, although he is no longer affiliated with the university. You've just contradicted him on a subject on which he is an authority.

I hope you've got something better than this lame rebuttal up your sleeve, though I'll bet dollars to donuts you don't. We don't know if time, space, and matter were created simultaneously. The universe existed at the time of the big bang. We can't go far enough back in the history of the universe to answer the question you ask. That you even ask it shows that you are buttfuckingly ignorant about the subject. Care to provide further demonstration of your deficient schooling, low intellect, and just general failings on every subject that you've chosen to address here?

Can you please quote Prof. Don Lincoln where he says space, time and matter "evolved independently"...LOL!

TenQ:

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

You are using the Teleological Argument which was variously articulated by the writers of the psalms, St. Paul, William Paley in his book Natural Theology, and many others. The argument states that just as we can tell that a watch we find on the beach was designed, so we also can tell the world was designed by an Intelligent Designer. We can also tell from the design what that Creator’s intentions for us are. There are all sorts of problems with such an argument from a modern perspective. If we say we can recognize design in the watch on the beach, why not in the beach itself? With a Creator God, everything must be designed. Which leads to the second problem: the examples of such design are radically cherry-picked, especially to show the alleged Creator in a positive light. The same Creator who supposedly designed birds and eyeballs also designed parasites and diseases. As naturalist Sir David Attenborough pointed out, just because there are pretty things like hummingbirds and butterflies doesn’t mean there is a Creator God: "You've also got to think of a little boy sitting on a river bank, like here in West Africa, that’s got a little worm, a living organism, in his eye and boring through the eyeball and slowly turning him blind. The Creator God that you believe in, presumably, also made that little worm."

Further, we now know from science how apparent design in the cosmos and in biological life was either self-organized by the laws of nature or evolved by natural selection, neither of which require an Intelligent Designer. The fallback argument is that such laws and evolution were themselves the creations of a Creator who fine-tuned the universe. However, this begs the question of why such a Creator was required for a creation which doesn’t reflect his assumed attributes. The idea of God’s special creation takes a beating when we understand that over 90% of all species that ever lived on earth have gone extinct in five major extinctions and many more minor ones. As Scottish philosopher David Hume wrote, "If there is a designer, he must take credit for the flaws in his creation. Flaws in the creation directly reflect flaws in the creator. If there is a flaw in the creator then he cannot be all powerful."

TenQ:


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

Very simple question!

I would assume it was another human, not God. A cause should be both sufficient and necessary. God, as an explanation, is sufficient for almost anything, but it really isn't necessary. If you had read more about science, you would have heard about self-organization as a separate explanation from evolution. Evolution and self-organization are much more likely explanations for apparent design than God. God is a highly uneconomical explanation for anything, since it posits a whole other, spiritual dimension.

Tamaratonye1:

BTW, I'm willing to bet that you can't name a single objective moral. I'm doubly willing to bet that you can't name one that wasn't violated thrice in your "holy" book.

Every moral law of God has and will be violated by man.
Even as a Christian, we many times violate God's laws!

"Love your neighbour as yourself" is a law I struggle to keep for I'm naturally selfish... LOL!

Tamaratonye1:

How do you measure how complex a system is?

Complexity is relative my dear: I'm surprised you didn't know that!

Tamaratonye1:

Possibly an arranged marriage, with the ceremony and consummation to occur at a later date.

Regardless, this does not eliminate the problem of your evil little god-thing forcing itself upon her - with that kind of power imbalance, it's coercion rather than consent - the divine equivalent of holding a gun to someone's head.

And it was a Christian myth!?

Seriously!?

Tamaratonye1:

Sorry, but no. It's an evolved instinct upon which later social development is based as you grow.

You're a social animal descended from other social animals. Your ancestors survived by developing instincts against anti-social behaviours and toward pro-social behaviours. You inherited these instincts. You can see this in very young children who, despite being very cute, are a bunch of little sociopaths.

Can you please show the Evidence to prove that conscience EVOLVED and from what?

LOL!

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?

You DO realize that DNA is not a code, don't you? You are trying to use an analogy in an attempt to prove something. You cannot prove something using an analogy. It doesn't work that way.
To take it a step further, you are trying to use philosophy as a premise for your assertions instead of science. That way you don't have to get all tangled up explaining molecular science. Go read a science book. DNA are chemicals and no more a code than fire and gasoline are codes.

Scientists have succeeded having antique RNA form spontaneously from the known chemicals and environment that were present in early earth.
It happened naturally and spontaneously. No god was necessary. Simple antique RNA is an ancient precurser to DNA.

chryssanthe:


You DO realize that DNA is not a code, don't you? You are trying to use an analogy in an attempt to prove something. You cannot prove something using an analogy. It doesn't work that way.
To take it a step further, you are trying to use philosophy as a premise for your assertions instead of science. That way you don't have to get all tangled up explaining molecular science. Go read a science book. DNA are chemicals and no more a code than fire and gasoline are codes.

Scientists have succeeded having antique RNA form spontaneously from the known chemicals and environment that were present in early earth.
It happened naturally and spontaneously. No god was necessary. Simple antique RNA is an ancient precurser to DNA.

To continue on your excellent point here, the idea that DNA is a "code" or a "blueprint" taken literally is a fallacy of reification; It's mistaking the map for the territory; these are how we conceptualize and vulgarize DNA not what DNA is or works.

Tamaratonye1:

My concerns were not for the well-being of the animal but rather that of society as a whole. No smart society allows potential rapists to start with animals and work their way up.


And I am stating that there can be no circumstances where bestiality poses no harm to society, so that condition is simply silly. You might as well ask if murder would be aceptable if it didn't harm society. It makes as much sense.

They can use barrier methods now and the universe would be safe. LOL!
We can even have mandatory medical examination for both man and animal to make it very safe. LOL!!

Are you underestimating our medical knowledge to make copulations between man and animals safe?

Tamaratonye1:

I tried to tell you that the question likely makes no sense. You are asking "What is the cause of causality?" which is slightly sillier than wondering what the weight of your shadow is.


Except that "uncaused causes" are as irrational and impossible as infinite regress. This should indicate that your "simple logic" has failed under non-trivial circumstances and that you're going to need something a little more robust. Instead, you've taken an obvious mistake, given it a name, and granted it dominion over you.

Your only alternative then is to conclude that infinite regress of cause and effect is the reality (even though the law of entropy is grossly violated).

I didn't ask you what the cause of causality is:
I only asked if an infinite regress of cause and effect is possible either logically or scientifically!

Tamaratonye1:

No, that's a failing mark in Primary 6 math, lol.

Thanks for the observation: corrected!

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

Tamaratonye1:

Rejected. Existential fallacy, because, existence of your god not yet demonstrated. Also, unsupported assertion.


Rejected. People break your alleged god's laws every minute of the day, all around the world. No "binding" demonstrated.


Then why should we take them seriously?


Unsupported assertion. I have never seen any credible evidence for miracles.

Do you need to accept anything!?
No!

As it doesn't change the truth.

No, the question of moral objectivity doesn't have anything to do with subjective plans or designs or how any subject..including gods... want things to go.

Crazy ex-girlfriends who stalk or slash tires also have plans, also have designs, also want things to go a certain way.

The question of moral objectivity is whether or not there's something about an act or deed, the object..rather than the person doing it or watching it, the subject, that is wrong as a matter of fact, not wrong as a matter of being counter to their opinions or wishes.

Do you believe that there's really something wrong with things like incest or rape or murder..or are these things only bad insomuch as god has other plans?


If an ideology proposing a subjective moral code is a bad thing, and that's one of the problems with atheism as you see it, and as you've said in thread...then wouldn't this also mean that it's a problem with your god beliefs, which you have categorized as subjective.... as well?

As far as missed oppurtunities..and taking the time to familiarize yourself with moral objectivity....a gods moral statement could be objective insomuch as it purports to report a fact, and accurately reports that fact. If a god says that something is A Bad Thing™, but what it means is that this thing is not according their silly plan..the issuer has misreported a purported fact.


This is all a fancy way of saying..in short..that god bullshitted you...according to you.


That's why I keep trying to point you to the offramp. I'm fairly certain you don't want to suggest or imply that your own god is a shameless lying piece of shit whose only metrics for proper snd improper acts are base self interest and the minutiae of some opaque and personal plan.


In between moments of claiming that gods morality is subjective, and that god-subjective is man-objective, you also babble about god having REASONS, and those REASONS being beneficial to us somehow..etc.

Well..that's not subjectivity. That's objective utilitarianism.


Of course, god can't actually change the outcomes of objective utilitarianism at a whim....so that's a problem for some of the other things you've been calling gods subjectivity.

TenQ:

You are making no sense here.

However about if an objective law can be wrong (if I get you correctly).

It's all about Design and Purpose of the Custodian/Owner/Manufacturer of the people concerned.
Example:
The maker of an internal combustion engine says use Petrol Only as fuel?

Is he (the manufacturer) wrong?

Does it mean that one cannot use other fuel type such as Butane, Alcohol or Kerosene?

The question truely is:
Was the engine designed to use alternate fuel? And
Is it in the best interest of the engine to use alternate fuel?

The manufacturer cannot in that sense be wrong!

Can the Government be wrong in giving objective laws to the people?