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!!
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?
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!
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.
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?
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?
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
It does not matter what one believes since belief does not put food on one's table, which is the very beginning of salvation. After all, no Lord is shepherding those the Lord has not first prepared a table before, which is precisely why they want.
A man is a Trinity of his body, his soul and his spirit. Each aspect of his being has its own duty and has what nurtures it and how it should interact with the society.
Body: Balanced diet, Exercise, Cleanliness Soul: Knowledge, Wisdom, Character, Ethics and healthy directive to the body Spirit: Connection to God, Conscience, Intuition, Instinct etc
Your soul will never eat bread and butter. Your body without your soul cannot enjoy music, poetry, jokes Your soul without your spirit cannot fellowship with God nor be sensitive to the spirit realm.
Luk 4:4: "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."
Belief in God doesn't put food on the table. Your soul directing your body to smart working through adequate preparation does.
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.
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
midnight378: governments put people to death all the time , many times in error. many people think capital punishment is wrong , many do not. many people say abortion is murder, many do not. it used to be legal for husbands to rape their wives. you punctured nothing.
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!
1000WaysToLive: People like you scare the crap out of me sometimes. I'm never sure when people like you are just deliberately stupid for some religious belief or naturally dumb as bricks.
Most modern law is based on human-oriented ethics, which are entirely different from religion. And religious morality is mostly based on pre-religious human experience learning to live together.
Most of the rational stuff in religious texts comes from pre-existing common sense. Don't covet your neighbor's goods is kind of obvious. Same with wife back when women were considered property. Respect your elders is a good idea too. They knew stuff.
The rest of the stuff in religious texts is a bunch of crap. Why Sunday? Why not any other day? Thorsday seems as rational.
"In a community where there is no form of government, do you think Murder, Rape and Cannibalism are okay?"
Of course not. I can only laugh at people who think atheists have no ethics just because they don't fear a deity. Atheists are about 15% of the general population, but about 1% of the prison population. I have never found a morew ethical and law-abiding group than atheists. We just don't do that stuff because we understand that, from an ethical human POV, it is wrong.
That is a big difference.
Atheist don't normally do bad things because they understand they are wrong to other humans.
Theists are ordered by god not to do those things bad things because they might be punished.
Think about that.
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!?
chryssanthe: Yet your god impregnates 13 or 14 year old little Mary without her fathers consent! The age of consent in Hebrew culture 2000 years ago was 12 or sometime after her first period!
She was subject to the rule and legal control of her father which was based on the laws of the Talmud which was based on the laws handed down by their god, the same god you believe in.
According to Christian myth Jesus is the result of impregnating a child which today would be consider statitory rape! As a secular society we've decided that a 12 year old girl is still a child yet in objective religious standards set up by your god it's perfectly fine to deposit magical sperm in a child.
Tell me again about these objective moral standards!
Morality developes and changes through time and experience. We don't stone children today as is condoned in the bible. Anyone stoning a child today would be in prison!
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!
chryssanthe: "Killing is bad" is an example of absolute morality. Killing is bad, no matter what. Now, the reality is that killing in self defense is not all that bad, isnt it? God proclaiming "Thou shalt not kill" is subjective and absolute morality. Absolute because, see above. Subjective, because of someone proclaiming his personal view to be relevant instead of objective facts.
I am not holding my breath, tho, that Tenq will understand or admit to his mistake.
Tamaratonye1: Since I haven't claimed it's possible, I'm not going to attempt to prove that it's possible. As a Christian, you do claim that a necessary being is possible. Can you prove it?
And no, you've misunderstood the science of the big bang. It does not say anything about how or when the universe originated. That is simply unknown.
How: Big Bang or Inflation of gravitational singularity When: 13.8billion years ago
Tamaratonye1: Since I haven't claimed it's possible, I'm not going to attempt to prove that it's possible. As a Christian, you do claim that a necessary being is possible. Can you prove it?
And no, you've misunderstood the science of the big bang. It does not say anything about how or when the universe originated. That is simply unknown.
For crying out loud, are you simply incapable of reading for comprehension? Is English not your first language? Or is there some other handicap that explains your constant misreading?
Speak to my response if you can, and if you can't, it's not compulsory as you don't understand what is written
1000WaysToLive: YOU SAID: "Morality can be God subjective code but it makes it man's OBJECTIVE code."
Still not how that works, not even in all caps.
YOU SAID: "The legal age is subjective to the Government (it could have been any age whatsoever). However, whatever age they choose is Objective to the citizens."
If the legal age were subjective, they'd ask you how old you thought she looked, or how old she seemed.
Bad at words.
There is no immorality, according to you..sin or otherwise. You already explained that if morality was subjective nothing is really good or bad, and insist again here that gods moral code is subjective.
Shame on you: I said there is no morality!? And I am a Christian!?
Everyone irrespective of government or no government laws know that Murder, Rape is wrong because we have been programmed to know that these are wrong.
I just punchured you argument that morality is subjective to God therefore also subjective to man.
chryssanthe: You are simply starting with another "thing" that needs another first cause to exist!
Where are the citations to support this statement? You are simply using wishful thinking and more begging the question. Somehow you've set up your "everything" as extra special because you can't stand the thought that your "everything" isn't all that special. Your god is conveniently unprovable. (So are invisible, magical unicorns) If you were really honest with yourself and with us you'd do what most physicists say, "At this time we do not know". But theists cannot be honest and can't stand the thought that their powerful god isn't automatically the answer to gaps in scientific knowledge!
Therefore, you're bound and determined to shove your god in that gap and claim victory no matter that there is zero evidence for a god! It's religious hubris!
What I know for certain is that the Universe came into being 13.8billion years ago. Before that time ALL paws of Physics and Chemistry including Times, Space and Matter did NOT exist.
If the gravitational singularity was eternal, it would have been a CONSTANT. If it was a constant, it would still remain a constant till today EXCEPT it is perturbed by an external force (that is strange to the present forces in physics and chemistry).
Whatever moved the gravitational singularity to inflate is EXTERNAL to it and not the kind of force we know in Physics and Chemistry.
You as an Atheist deny this all together, me as a Christian call the primary mover my God. What then is your problem about that
1000WaysToLive: YOU SAID: "The subjective code of a deity makes it objective for man."
That's not how it works, full stop. A gods subjective code is what it is.
Subjective. Subjective to god, subjective to man. Subjective to your house pet. It's subjectivity is a description of it's origin. God commands are not facts, they are opinions, according to you.
YOU SAID: "Sometimes, a government steps in to fulfill the same role."
Our government concerns itself with legality, not morality - and governments are explicitly relative - not subjective -or- objective.
As you're aware, there are many things which you would find immoral that are not illegal....as well as many things which are illegal that you would not find immoral.
YOU SAID: "The age 18 years old as a baseline for consent is an objective rule made by government. If a child is 17 years 9 months, you cannot have sex with her as an adult without the risk of legal infraction."
Sure, if the age of consent is 18, then it follows that sex with someone under 18 is illegal - but a thing being illegal does not equate to a thing being immoral.
Perhaps what you've meant to say is that you believe gods hands us laws, not an objective moral code? All fine and well, but there are more sets of laws in the world that we don't follow, than ones that do.
I have no interest in god-laws. I'm not subject to god-laws. There is no moral imperative that I follow god-laws.
Does it matter if a law is Legal rather than moral? Infraction of God's legal laws is called SIN of which immorality is a subset.
Example is legal age in most western cultures set at 18 years old. Even if it changes to 17 years old, it is still an objective standard for citizens.
A man who had sex with a 17 years 9 months old girl would be attested for rape.
In a community where there is no form of government, do you think Murder, Rape and Cannibalism are okay?
1000WaysToLive: YOU SAID: "Objective standard is any standard you can't bend at your whim."
That is not what an objective standard is...at all. An objective standard is one which accurately reports those facts it purports to report.
Can you bend them to your will? Absolutely..and people commonly do.
YOU SAID: "Example is legal age in most western cultures set at 18 years old. Even if it changes to 17 years old, it is still an objective standard for citizens."
A persons age is objective - it is true or false of the object (the person in question) that they are equal to or greater than 18 years old.
We do like to think our laws are based in facts. This is irrelevant to morality, however..if morality is not objective. If morality is a gods subjective code.
Morality can be God subjective code but it makes it Man's OBJECTIVE code.
The Legal age is subjective to the Government (it could have been any age whatsoever). However, whatever age they choose is Objective to the citizens.
The frame of reference of definition is important my dear!
When spacetime breaks down at planck-time, all scientific laws break down, space and time are no more and your logic becomes meaningless. That is (currently) the model best fitting available data (measuring microwave background radiation and brightness of Supernovae).
Everything has a cause! except *inject your favourite fantasy*
Its called "special pleading", and its a logical fallacy!
But lets grant you for a moment that there WAS a (first) cause, creating everything. Please demonstrate why it has to be all powerful.
I claim it needs to be just powerful enough to create what actually WAS created. I claim that this first cause was NOT able to create anything else than the universe/multiverse we actually live in! Prove me wrong!
Oh, and you were objectively wrong about objective morals. You know why? Because its a fact that you were wrong (according to the definition of objective morals), and this is not influenced by your opinions, feelings or interpretations, or your gods for that matter!
At least you acknowledge that all the laws of physics, matter, space, energy and time break down at the origin of OUR time, OUR space, OUR energy and OUR matter.
The implication is simple:;there is Something that is beyond TIME, SPACE and MATTER that set the Universe rolling that the Laws of Physics and Chemistry cannot unravel.
This is the Primary Mover of EVERY thing we know. This can be a Person or a Force (an argument for another day).
As Christians we know Him to be a Person. Science cannot even measure or detect Him. Atheists deny what they cannot even comprehend!
Does an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of EVERYTHING exist (either as a Force or a Personality)?
midnight378: you don't know that. Absolutely not . No. 1. there are many logics... , and you don't know (nor have you justified the one you're using) which one applies to the conditions you're claiming your logic applies to . You have not demonstrated there is a universal logic that applies to all situations . Even in this universe at a singularity, your logic does not apply. Fail. Near a black hole your logic does not apply...... which logic are you using and how is it you know it applies to the reality you're talking about ? Hint: You don't . Justify the logic you're using , or stop talking about logics. 2. you know nothing except 5% of this universe . You know nothing about the reality in which your gods exist . You know nothing about anything in those conditions . Your gods are not bound by your logic . You know nothing about the reality , logic or cause and effect that would have been external to this universe... you're making claims about "has to terminate somewhere" you know nothing about..... Fail again. 3. Is this your first debate ? These are rookie errors. "Terminates" assumes space-time exists in the reality without this universe , (and contradicts the theology of an eternal/timeless God and its environment). you know nothing about that reality , and as far as we know space-time began at the Big Bang. Using ANY temporal reference ("terminate" is unsupported/unfounded/unwarranted. Typical Christian ignorant misrepresentations.
Cool down and learn!
Logic is a step above experience and experiments.
Logic is very simple If A>B (Postulate 1) and If B>C (Postulate 2) THEN A>C (Conclusion)
The conclusion can only be wrong if either of the two postulates are wrong. From the knowledge, we have are the postulates surrounding infinite regress false?
Until they are PROVEN FALSE, the CONCLUSION is TRUE
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.
Near1: When one argument has evidence, and the other does not, I know what I lend credence to. I have beliefs and I have knowledge, but I'm careful to not confuse the two. Beliefs need no evidence, but claimed "knowledge" does. And here you are asserting that humans cannot be moral without your god. If you expect me to accept that without picking your brain, you might be in for a little ride.
Is this a tacit admission that you have no evidence? If so, you should simply short-circuit a long argument and admit as much right now. Because you and I both know you do not have any. And without evidence, I am as entitled to my own perspective as you are.
That's subjectivity, my guy. If you get to make bald claims bereft of evidence, I get to say you're wrong and what can you use to argue that?
10k says you're going to try to prove your case, even as you're here trying to disparage the value of evidence.
Oh, that's right, you don't have any. No wonder.
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?
Tamaratonye1: That isn't a logical restriction. It may be the case, but it's not because of the laws of logic. And this simply leads to a paradox as something always having been is as difficult to conceive whether we call it necessary being or an infinite regress. It's essentially the same problem. So God has essentially the same problem as you think the other has in that his mode of existence doesn't make sense.
The Universe originated 13.8 billion years ago from a gravitational singularity. Time, Space and Matter with ALL the Laws of Physics started simultaneously at this time.
Can you logically or scientifically prove that infinite regress of cause and effect is possible?
Christianity Etc › Re: Honest Question To The Christians by TenQ: 7:16pm On Sep 19, 2022
is unsupported/unfounded/unwarranted.