3) ARGUMENT FROM FIRST CAUSE

This is one argument that has been used multiple times in favor of a god. It goes a bit like this

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause. There cannot be an infinite regression of causes, so therefore, there has to be an uncaused first cause, which is God"

This is also flawed for a number of reasons. But one major one is this.

An uncaused first cause does NOT equal a god. While a god can be an uncaused first cause, There is no reason why it MUST be.

An uncaused first cause, by definition, is simply something that was not caused. That's all there is to it. Nothing there necessitates it to be defined as a god, especially in the context that a god is defined these days.

Nothing necessitates the uncaused first cause to be a "conscious disembodied mind" or whatever other definition of god theists may desire to use. An uncaused first cause does not equal a god.

2) The idea of an uncaused first cause is just as absurd as an infinite regress of causes. Because it leads to the question "why is there anything at all" An uncaused first cause would still be a thing. And we're left asking the question "why does this thing exist the way it is?" And if our only answer to the question is "it just is", then you need to understand that that same phrase can be applied to anything, Including the universe.

Simply put, it is very possible to claim the universe is the uncaused first cause, and not a god, and simply say "it just is"

2) ARGUMENT FROM ORIGIN (UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING)


The origin of the universe is another embarrassingly terrible argument used for the existence of a god. Weirdly enough, it highlights the double standard many theists have. It is also often used in combination with the argument from complexity. Here's how it goes.


The universe came into existence 14 billion years ago. The universe cannot come into existence from nothing. Therefore, it must have been created. Therefore god exists. This argument is again flawed for a number of reasons.

1) There's no evidence to believe the universe came from nothing. The big bang, is an event that talks about the expansion of the universe, and not its existence from nothing. The big bang was an event in time, not a point in time. Think about it this way.

If you build a chair today, the chair, as it is defined, comes into existence today, sunday the 30th. However, you will agree with me that the materials for the chair have been in existence long before today. Just because the chair started existing today, and didn't exist yesterday, doesn't mean it was created from nothing. It only means it was created from "a different something"

2) It pushes the problem upwards again. Let's assume the cause of the universe was a god. Where did that god come from? Most theists believe that the god is eternal. But how? Why? I've seen no evidence to believe that if a god existed, it could not have been caused by something else too. And of course I understand it pushes the question upwards again, and that's exactly the point.

There's no reason to believe that if a god exists, it also wasn't created, or caused by something else. This brings me to my last point for today, the argument from first cause.

1) ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY

This is one of the most common arguments used by theists, and as a former theist, this was one of the arguments I liked to make reference to. But it is incredibly flawed in a number of ways. It goes a bit like this.

"look at everything around you.. the starts, planets, atoms, universe.. literally anything. It is incredibly complex. Too complex to not have been created" ... or "it is too complex to arise from nothing"... and the logic that follows is that there must be a god. A god must have created this.

Unfortunately, this logic doesn't explain complexity. It only shifts it one step higher. Let me explain.

A God, if it exists, is also a thing. this god is said to be even more complex, with holy books saying we can never understand this entity. Its ways are above our ways. Whether or not it has a form or shape, the very concept of what it is supposed to be, makes it undeniably complex.

If we need a reason to explain why the very complex universe exists, then we also need a reason to explain why an even more complex god would exist.

You cannot answer the question of complexity with more complexity. That'll only move the question upward. Why does a more complex god exist. Why can a more complex god exist?

He/She/It just is, is not a viable answer, as that can also be applied to the universe.

So yes, the universe is complex. A god, if it exists, would also be incredibly more complex than the universe. If we point to a god to explain the complexity of our universe, then we must also point to something else to explain the complexity of this god.

Hello everyone,

So considering the enormous number of terrible arguments theists try to use in favor of a god, I think it's time to address some of them, and quite rightly point out why these arguments fail very badly, and with some examples too.

Fellow agnostics and atheists, feel free to add in some of yours as well. Theists, pay attention and learn from these, so you can (hopefully) present better arguments in the future

Let's get down to it.

MaxInDHouse:

Good morning my friend, i'm fine and you?

Splendid

Supreme means most powerful, logically the most powerful person can't support stealing because He has all the power to give whatever you have to the person of His choice in multiple folds without that one coming to steal from you.

I think this is where we disagree. Power and empathy are different things. And completely unrelated too. There are many powerful people that support stealing, and there are many regular non-powerful people that oppose it.

Solomon became the richest in his time because the Almighty wanted it so but did the man steal from anyone?
NO!
The Almighty knows how to manipulate things in favour of the person of His choice without such one coming to steal from you!

Again, the story of solomon is an interesting one, but I don't think it applies here. I completely understand what you're saying. A supreme being, or someone with the highest level of power wouldn't need you to steal from anyone, since it has all the power to give you what you want.

But you're basically describing a supreme being that cares. And like i said earlier, empathy is not a requirement for power. What if you had a supreme being that didn't care, or simply one that enjoys watching humans fight with each other, much like some people enjoy watching boxing matches?

What if you had a psychopathic supreme being who derived pleasure in the misery of humans?

After sometimes people's brains grow weaker and weaker until they die but eternal beings are not prone to such so their brains are sharp always the only problem is there are many Gods and one Almighty God {1Corinthians 8:5} so while other Gods can be partial the Almighty can never be partial because He has all the powers and nobody can stop Him!

Again, having a sharp brain does not equate to being wise. Adolescents are supposed to have some of the sharpest brains, since their bodies are either reaching their peak, or are already there. But we don't argue that adolescents are wiser than every other age group. This isn't an issue of brain development.

vdestro:


Stop disgracing yourself. Your threads prove and shows that you still could not offer any counter to the evidences presented.

Counters to what evidences?

In your own house or room like the one you have or had when in the university, where did morality or imnorality come from? Is it from your neighbour or from your visitor or from your street people?

You're missing the point so I'll repeat it. I'm not asking where morality came from. I'm asking where it should come from. I'm asking where we should look when it comes to defining right and wrong. Emphasis on should.

Government is a pack of the strongest and the most dangerous men in an area who work together to subject and rule over their follow men, hence it is their ability and willingness to do violence and destruction that makes them different from you and i.

So, if they can make laws, i too can make laws, And if i dont have a right to make laws, then they too have no rights ti make it also, hence they are no different as we are all humans, having the same rights and liabilities and culpabilities.

Therefore, morality/immorality (Law) does not come from us most especiallly as the idea of government only came up around 4th BC by the first groups of criminal bandits (Summer Kings who broke The Morals (The Law) on ground already by violently attacking and invading unsuspecting lands that were not even theirs to surbordinate them to rule, just like what boko haram is doing in the north.

And everyone including you, called it wrong and immoral.

So, if boko haram is morally guilty, so therefore are the Summer rulers also guilty, so also are the governments who are like them, also guilty and unlawful.

Thus, the question standing again is where did the Morality, which was on ground before governments came, come from?

And this is where The Only standing Answer is God, again and again!

Again. I'm asking where it should come from. From your write-up, it seems you believe morality should come from a god. My question to you now, is why?

If governments impose laws based on their power, and these laws can be considered bad in some cases, then how much more different is a god? Replace the word government with god and you see exactly what's happening in some religions.

And then my follow up questions.. assuming a god exists, what makes it qualified to give moral laws on behalf of humans? What makes its laws correct? If a god says it's correct to murder children, would you do it? Would that make it right?

LordReed:


It should come from well-reasoned out thought processes.

Interesting response. Although the question arises.. what if not everyone shares the same reasoning capacity? Or what if people follow different lines of reasoning?

Been a while Maximus. How are you

MaxInDHouse:
Morality comes to mind when you're dealing with neighbours, when you're alone inside your room nobody can say whatever you do is immoral so it's when you have to mingle with fellow humans within the community that you must think of morality.
So it's a being who is SUPREME that should tell us how morality should be applied because if you're asking people you'll get more than billions of contradicting opinions which leads to conflicts which in turn leads to wars!

Can a supreme being be wrong in it's moral judgements?

By definition, I consider supreme to be something with the highest level of power. But power doesn't necessarily translate to knowledge or wisdom. So again, can a supreme being be wrong?

If a supreme being says it's right to steal from anyone you see, would that be right? Why or why not? And how did you arrive at the conclusion?

To answer your second question we need to figure out what vital role will morality play in a community.

Well morality will help people from different backgrounds to come to terms on the right standard so that we can all have the same line of thought to condemn what is harmful.

So why must it come from a God or Gods?

Experience they say is the best teacher because someone who has lived longer than you do should be able to tell you where there are pitfalls, so if God/Gods who are eternal truly exist they should know better as in wiser than humans whose lifespan is lesser than 100 years!

What makes a god wiser simply because it lived longer? There are lots of people well into old age today that are still not as wise.

If you're talking about experience, what experience exactly has a god had, that makes it qualified to determine moral laws?

IconicR:
It should come from home (parents) but unfortunately most modern parents do not have that moral values to instill on their offspring. The immorality of today's world started from our homes, some parents do not even know where their kids sleep at night and when kids are exposed to the world too early it'll only take the grace of God to get them back on track and this brings us to where we are today. At my age Dem no born me well to be outside past six, even my movements is still being monitored though it can be frustrating sometimes sha but I've come to understand that they mean well for me.

Where do parents then get their morality from? Is it from their parents as well?

If a person's parent tells them stealing from the poor lady in the store across the street is a good thing, does that make it so?

What makes a thing truly good? Where does our sense of what is good come from? Where should it come from?

Cassandraloius:
A man/woman can decide to be a morally good person. It comes from the individual.

But what does it mean to be a morally good person? What qualities or actions do you consider morally good? and why? Where does a person's sense of "good" come from. Where should it come from?

A follow up question. For people who believe morality comes from a god.. why? Assuming gods exist, what makes them qualified to be able to dictate our moral laws? And if they do, what makes these laws themselves right?

If the government of a country passes a law that's incredibly harmful to the citizens, like the chopping off of fingers, does that make the law itself good? Or in other words, why is the law good, or bad?

For people who claim their god is qualified because it is all-knowing, how exactly do you know? How can anyone who doesn't know something, be sure that someone else knows everything?

Hello everyone. Been a while.

So the subject of morality is one that gets brought up here quite often. The whole point of this religion thing, is to do the right thing so hopefully you can get into some sort of sky mansion after you die. you know the drift.

People usually like to argue that morality, or definitions of right and wrong, come from a god. One that's still yet to be proven tho, but that's besides the point.

I'd like to ask a different question this time. Not where morality comes from, but where it SHOULD come from.

When it comes to the definition of right and wrong, where should we ultimately be looking to define it? What things do we need to consider in making such decisions, and why?

The floor is open. I'd like to hear your thoughts and views, and hopefully share a bit of mine in the process.

preciousee17:


Okay okay, noted all your points.

So let me ask then, have you heard of the egg and hen theory...?
Have you ever reasoned that everything that was created, has an origin. A creator...

I agree that everything that begins too exist has a "cause". I'm not quick to call that cause a creator mainly because of the religious connotations the word entails.

preciousee17:


When you keep saying we don't have evidence, we cannot prove...
But on the contrary we have shown you what our evidence is, that it is:
1. The Word of God (the words in our Bible)

How exactly is the bible proof of a God? I'm genuinely curious.

2. The proof of the Word of God that we can see with our eyes (For instance, our so-called miracles)

Miracles prove nothing other than the fact that something unexplainable happened. Magic, miracles, juju, whatever name you decide to call them. these seemingly unnatural events prove nothing other than the fact that something we didn't think could happen, indeed happened.

If I vanish before your eyes, and reappear, what exactly does that prove other than the vanishing I just did?

3. God Himself inside of us (something I may never use in an open argument but now you know that many of us actively feel, hear the Spirit of God in us.

When you refuse to accept our proof, what other proof do we have to offer?

Any particular evidence of this thing you call "God" being inside us? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

The opposite of the whole matter is that certain Atheists that talk about Big Bang and Evolution are the ones that don't have concrete proof, only theories and hypothesis...

I've seen a lot of theists try to attack the big bang and evolution. Both of which have reasonable evidence doing for them, like the cosmic microwave background in the case of the big bang, and fossil and radiometric data in the case of evolution.

But here's the thing you guys fail to understand. Proving the big bang and evolution wrong (I'll be more than happy for you to do so), doesn't automatically validate your religious stories.

Any, and I mean ANY statement or claim that tries to explain how the natural world came to be, needs to do so with EVIDENCE. In the absence of evidence, these claims will be baseless, and cannot be taken seriously.

You are still yet to provide any evidence for a god, talkless of YOUR god.

And sorry but you'll either believe that that healing was God answering your prayers or it was a coincidence that at the moment you prayed, certain natural factors brought about the healing

What healing?

preciousee17:
I'll start by reaching out to Atheists, because you guys are missing out the most. How can you say there is no God/Spiritual Entity at all? But you have seen how nature is orchestrated to fall in line with itself, the endless cycles and behavioral patterns... That alone should tell you that Someone instituted these behaviors and protocols, but you all say it is just a COINCIDENCE

To clear up several misconceptions here.

1. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god/gods, and that's about it. Claims that everything is just "coincidence" is not the default position of atheism.

2. The question of why nature is the way it is, is something we don't yet have the answer to. If you want to claim something called a god is responsible for it, then you have to be able to prove it.

Also, i feel like it's important to point out that adding a god to the equation won't solve the problem. Because we'll still be left asking why this god is the way it is, and not literally any other way else.

Let me make an example from young people (because young people speak plain truth more than us, the older ones). I'll make an example from myself, my immediate community and a young child many miles away from Nigeria

1. When we were younger, my family usually visited our paternal grandfather once in a while (as usual), but we weren't in constant connection with him and didn't know much about how he was faring.
One day my elder sister had a dream, in the dream my grandfather looked so lean and skeleton-like, and was sitting on the biggest sofa in his house. People wearing red outfits were calling on him to come join them
She told my mom and very quickly, we arranged an impromptu visit to my grandpa
Lo and behold when we arrived, he was sitting on the exact same sofa, looking like a skeleton exactly as my sister described. Very quickly also the man died.
Later we grew up to realize that the man was a member of an occult group (which explains the people in red outfits in that dream)
Dear atheists, are you saying this was a COINCIDENCE?
Let's move on

2. [I've decided to wait till I find a more publicized case]

3. This one is short. In the recent earthquake that happened in Turkey
A little child was found in the rubble 3 days after a building collapsed. When he was rescued, he was still strong and lively, moving around and not showing any signs of hunger.
He was asked if he had eaten and he replied 'yes', that a man in white cloth had been coming to give him food at regular intervals.
Okay atheists, the boy was definitely *hallucinating*, it's a COINCIDENCE

I often try to avoid jumping in to try to disprove stories like this, mainly because the stories themselves, assuming they're true, don't prove any god in particular, or in general. If anything, they only open a new box of "things we don't understand yet". And also because the stories themselves are just that. Until substantiated, they can not be taken as serious proof of anything.

I'm not trying to dismiss these stories as necessarily false. But I'm also not too eager to accept any wild claim that's been reported without evidence.

preciousee17:
Tomorrow is Sunday!

Tell us a reason you don't/no longer believe in Jehovah God, and we'll try to debunk your reason (if need be)

This thread is for:
• Christians who Just want to ask any
questions (those passing through hard
times)
• Christians who are planning to give up
• Christians who no longer believe in God
• Muslims who think their Allah and our
Jehovah are the same God
• Atheists who want to voice their thoughts on
Christianity

This thread is not for:
• Immature minds who just want to make
jokes and insults
• People who cannot make a valid argument
• People who will not follow the rules of
argument

How our argument works:
• When you are asked a question, you must
answer in a normal statement, not with
insults, not answering questions with a
question
• When talking about a religion, don't assume
facts based on what you see their religious
leaders do or said. Only say what is
contained in their [Official] religious book(s).
• [Suggestions Accepted Here]

Lack of evidence in favor of one specific god, or notion of god above the others

Steep:

You are comparing society to God, your argument sees to suggest society can also determine morality, this is false and it has being proven so.

If that is what you got from my reply, then I humbly tip my hat to you once more and wish you the best. I don't know how else to explain my position to you.

Steep:

My world view is, if there is God then it makes sense that morality would be objective, because he made everyone and we all belongs to him, so it makes sense that what is right in one place would be right every where.
That is why, North Korea would be wrong for denying right to life.

You don't seem to understand. Pointing to an arbitrary God to answer the question of where morality comes from simply doesn't work.

Let me give examples. i will try to phrase it in the same manner you did

1. If there are digital overlords (simulation argument) then it makes sense that morality would be objective because the overlords would program it that way

2. If there is an unknown part of our brain responsible for morality then it makes sense because our brains have very similar composition which would explain why we all have ingrained morality.

All these, including yours, are possible attempts to explain why we have this "ingrained morality".. but without any sort of proof, they remain just claims.

This is a situation of

1. We have something
2. We want to know the origin of this something
3. Something else must have caused this something

Be it the universe, morality, consciousness or what not. Pointing fingers to some arbitrary unproven thing does not help .. in any way

If you want to claim it's one thing or the other, then provide proof. That's all we're saying

What you are trying to do is compare society to God which is illogical because the definition of God and the definition of society is not the same.
Just because birds can fly does not mean fishes should fly.

I'm not comparing society to god. I'm merely pointing out that adding the idea of god your argument does not make the moral laws you subscribe to any less societal. Not until you can prove said god.

FxMasterz:


And I've told you that I can't discuss anything just for argument sake. I don't have such time.

Please, I'm not talking about morality but universally accepted moral laws. Nothing you said up there addresses the issue

You're confusing me. You say you're not talking about morality, but instead universally accepted moral laws, which are still under the subject of morality.

Or is there an alternative definition I'm not seeing here.

FxMasterz:


If you don't accept that a God exists, there's no point discussing who's the true God.

If you say so. I've already told you there's no difference between accepting for the sake of discussion and accepting for real, as both situations would start from the exact same premise. But if you say so, then okay.

Universal morality is not based on religion, culture or traditions. I believe you're pretending not to understand. What has the subject to do with multiplicity of gods or religions or the lack of ir? Humans generally know certain things are right or wrong without recourse to any written law. That's what we're talking about.

If you're talking about morality regardless of religion, then of what use is the existence of god in the discussion?

If you're trying to prove the source of morality, then by all means go ahead. But so far I'm yet to see you try.

Your position seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong), that morality is more or less ingrained in us as humans. Why? Because a god made it so. All the while failing to prove said god.

It would be akin to me saying we have ingrained morality because our digital overlords in the simulation programmed us like that, or because there is an undiscovered element in human brains that make us moral.

Without any proof, the claim remains a claim. You can argue for a source of morality. But the moment you begin to describe the attributes of this source, you need to provide evidence. And so far, you've provided none.

Steep:
you are only speaking from your world view as an atheist.
In your world view society determines what is right and wrong.

That means if society says rape is good it means it is good.
If society says slavery is right slavery is right So those that fought against slavery were morally bankrupt simply because society considers slavery morally right according to atheist world vie

The problem I have with this your "society defines morality" narrative against the atheists, is that you don't realize how much this applies to you. Like, you're describing yourself in so much detail and you don't realize.

The only difference between you and the people you claim get their morality from "society", is the unproven claim that a "god" said so.

Till now I'm yet to see any god who claims to have created us, spell out its so called moral laws in a clear way for everyone to see or hear. All we have are reports of people claiming they heard from a god. claims that cannot be substantiated in any way.

What's worse is that these so called "laws of gods" are very, very identical to the societal laws you would expect.

There are time frames in the bible where things slavery, polygamy, apostasy and genocide were perfectly normal in the society at the time.

Even today, you're doing as society tells you. But not this society. the society of several years ago. The only difference is that you claim a god told you to do so.

A god who is still yet to be proven, and whose method of revelation seems to be almost identical to someone who received no revelation, but claimed he did so.

FxMasterz:


If the thread is literally about morality, what's the point in addressing atheists alone? Is it not because they said there's no god?

The thread tries to talk about morality from the perspective of an atheist, but it talks about morality nonetheless.

Then how comes the universally accepted moral laws that are not set by man? We're still talking about morality from the Atheists point of view.

You're shooting yourself in the foot more than you realize. You just talked about "universally accepted moral laws", in a world with different religions, and gods, and lack thereof too. So you're indirectly making reference to a sort of morality that exists regardless of the belief in a god.

The analogy isn't different because moral problems exist as well as crime problems. Both have laws to combat the problems. Laws from both sides were made. They're not self existent laws.

Again, when i talk of the moral dilemma, i'm talking about something different. It was explained on my other thread, but for the sake of not wanting to derail this one, I'll let it go for now.

There's a difference in accepting my position merely for the sake of a discussion rather than accepting my position as truth because the former puts you only in an argumentative position with a close mind. That'll lead to useless and endless arguments. I have no time for such. The later puts you in a fact finding kind of argument that could lead profitably to a destination.

Accept what position as truth? That an unproven god exists? How does that help our discussion? I've already said for the sake of argument, I'll accept that a god exists. I'll even take it further. For the sake of this discussion, I will assume that a single creator deity exists. So not polytheistic, but monotheistic.

By accepting this premise, it means we won't be running into any of the problems associated with a disbelief in this god. You'd be proving to me that your god is indeed the creator the same way you'd be proving to a deist or someone else who accepts the concept of a god, but is unsure of which one.

So once again, go ahead

FxMasterz:


We're not talking about the moral problem.

The thread is literally about morality

The existence of a government, presidents, judges as well as criminal laws don't solve the crime problems. But the existent of the laws themselves prove that someone higher than the criminal exists.

Vastly different analogy. That's not in any way similar to what i consider the 'moral problem'

The secondary stage is not what we would discuss just because you're agreeing for the sake of this discussion. It's better discussed with someone who strongly accepts the existent of a God but is unsure of which God is the true God. I don't see you at this stage yet.

What difference does it make? If I assume for the sake of the discussion that a god exists, how is it different from someone who truly believes? All premises held by the latter will be held by me. So feel free to go ahead with your proof.

FxMasterz:


The thread is about morality and targeted to atheists who say there's no God.

I can't prove God A or B until we first both agree that at least a God exists. This is the right order.

My point is that there are moral laws as well as laws guiding the universe in all its operations. Man discovered those laws, he didn't set them. Someone higher than man did. Laws don't enact or promulgate themselves.

I've explained in the past that the existence of a god does not solve the moral problem. I created an entire thread on it.

But okay, for the sake of this discussion, i will agree that a god exists.. so please go ahead to the secondary stage.

Prove god A or B

MaxInDHouse:


Insincerity is killing you!

Oh no.. it hurts.. ah insincerity.. now i am dead.

No king can be happy when his subjects aren't living peacefully among themselves.

Not what i asked.

The one and only true God should ensure that peace reigns among His own worshipers {Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-3} even though they're speaking different languages they will have understanding among themselves! Zephaniah 3:9

Not a prerequisite for being a king

But false Kings will not bother when those who supposed to be their subjects are killing one another! Revelation 6:3-4

Again.. not a prerequisite

WHY? Because they have no prospect for subjects that aren't their own.
So there are many unseen supernatural beings presenting themselves to humans as God {1Corinthians 8:5} since they have nothing to offer their worshipers are confused and in the face of politics and racism they will raise weapons to kill one another whereas the true God will settle all disparities among His own worshipers {Isaiah 2:4} using His active force not military might {Zechariah 4:6} to unite them as ONE! John 17:22

Refer to points above

I have challenged you several times to request worshipers of those Gods you're saying to come and prove how real is their God but you always dodge facts!

I've been requesting worshippers of all gods should prove theirs. You included. I'm still yet to see any proof

Aemmyjah:


The Cosmological Argument: This argument posits that everything in the universe has a cause, and since the universe itself must have a cause, there must be a First Cause or an Uncaused Cause, which is identified as the Creator or God. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, a variation of this argument, specifically states that the universe had a beginning, and since everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe must have a cause, which is the Creator.

The Teleological Argument (Argument from Design): This argument suggests that the complexity, order, and purpose observed in the natural world imply the existence of an intelligent Designer. The fine-tuning of the universe's physical constants, the intricacy of biological systems, and the emergence of consciousness are often cited as evidence for a Creator.

The Moral Argument: This argument posits that the existence of objective moral values and duties implies the existence of a moral lawgiver, which is identified as the Creator or God. Without a transcendent source, it is argued that moral values would be subjective and arbitrary.



The Argument from Contingency: This argument states that everything in the universe is contingent, meaning it depends on something else for its existence. Since there cannot be an infinite chain of contingent causes, there must be a necessary being that is the ultimate cause of everything else. This necessary being is identified as the Creator or God.


Some people still look for evidence ams instead of humbling themselves, they become proud and say they are intelligent

The above are not based on religion right? From AI

Congratulations to the AI. I don't know if you felt mentioning that would add credibility to your argument, but okay.

I'm not arguing for or against the existence of God. All I'm asking is for the person who believes in god A to prove that their specific god, and no one else, created the universe, and is hence the source of the moral laws, if any, that govern it.

Steep:
Are you saying your well being depends on the society? Society determines what is right and wrong for you?
What do you mean by society? A collection of atoms arranged into structure by mindless cosmic process meaning morality is determined by atoms at the end of the day.

1. If your definition of society is "a collection of atoms arranged into structure by mindless cosmic process", then i don't know what to say to you anymore.

2. I never said society determines what is right and wrong. I've repeatedly said that human well being is the thing that is intrinsically linked to morality.. not society.

It does not make any sense, meaning there is no free will, nothing is wrong or right at the end of the day just what propagate the human society, murder, rape, stealing lying can be all right when they profit society which itself is nothing but a complex structure of mindless atoms.

I've given up on explaining this to you. You choose to intentionally ignore what I'm saying to rehash the same narrative. I don't know how else to proceed with you

FxMasterz:


My intent here is not to prove that God A or B is the true God. That's a secondary issue. The primary issue is that a God exists.

This thread is about morality, not the existence of god. The reason i asked you to prove god A or B, is because it would help us define the arbiter of the alleged objective moral laws you believe exist.

FxMasterz:


The issue is not a matter of what God a or b says. The matter is who is the true God. There obviously one God but there are many impersonators.

Care to enlighten me on how you arrived at this conclusion?

Someone set the universally accepted moral laws that man uses as a standard to judge right and wrong.

The universe itself operates according to set laws and rules. Scientists discover those laws. Someone higher than man set them. Laws don't create themselves. They're enacted and promulgated.

The multiplicity of gods is a lame argument against God's existence. There could be two persons claiming rulership over a city. The question is, "who is the true and substantiated king?" It's folly to conclude in this scenario that there's no king anywhere.

I never tried to use the multiplicity of gods as a way to invalidate anyone's existence. If you want to claim your god is the creator of the universe and thus the arbiter of the moral laws within it, then you need to prove it.

To use your king analogy, prove that person A is indeed the "king" as he claims to be.

Steep:
Why should I as an individual care for the well being of others?

Wellbeing of the individual is intrinsically linked to the wellbeing of the group, since the individual is a part of the group, whether it accepts it or not.

As long as you interact with other members of the group one way or the other, your well-being is intertwined with theirs.

By the way we'll being is meaningless because we are all cosmic accidents and mind you atheism negate freewill so evil or good does not exist just atoms interacting. Oya answer

I'll try to say it a bit more slowly.

ATHEISM.... IS... SIMPLY... THE... LACK... OF... BELIEF... IN... GODS.

It makes no claim about anything else. It makes no claims about morality, or the origin of life, or freewill, or whether or not we are cosmic accidents. That's quite the handful of straws you got there.

Steep:

So as an atheist what determines what determines morality?

You're still missing my point. Atheism isn't a set of beliefs. It makes no claims to morality.

If you're asking how i view morality as a person, that's a different case.

For us humans, well-being seems to be intrinsically linked to morality. First wellbeing of the individual, and then of the whole.

Steep:
you are wrong, morality becomes object because there exist a power outside of man dmtgat determines what is right and wrong.

What exactly do you mean by "power outside of man"?

people may try to have a god after their umage but it does it negate that God exist.

What god? Which god?

The prove of God is all around. You can't have a creation without a creator.
Flat earthers claim there is no proof the earth is sphere going by your but evidence points otherwise.

A creation says nothing about its creator/creators. So it still leads back to my previous question. What god? Which god?

for theist that have same concept of God it is objective.

You're saying the same thing. If group A of theists subscribe to a concept of god that says pork is wrong, and group B subscribe to the one that says it is right, who then is correct. Until either group can prove that their god is indeed the creator of the universe, their claims to objective correctness are dead on arrival.

you don't accept proof. Otherwise the proof is all ready there.

I'm not asking for proof of A god. I'm asking for proof of YOUR god being the creator as it claims to be.

To give an analogy. Imagine a robot. I'm not asking for proof the robot was made. I'm asking for proof the robot maker is a 35 year old, 80 kg man named mark, and not literally anybody else.

Ooook soon moral law is purely a human thing, you have just confirmed what I said.
Atheism has no basis for objective morality.
So morality is basically anything I feel like or anything that benefits me or society.
All these rigmarolling is to justify your point. You shouldn't be embarrassed to say atheist world view has no true morality.

If you're going to quote me, do it correctly. Yes I said morality is a human thing. That does NOT mean it is purely subjective. I already said that before. and it is NOT a matter of personal opinion. I also said that before.

Also, atheism is not a belief system. saying atheism doesn't have a basis for objective morality is a strawman at best. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. And I've explained to you already that merely having a belief in a god does not automatically make morality objective.

Try to read through a little more carefully next time before misquoting me. thanks