It’s because the specific rules themselves are irrelevant from a functional standpoint.I really just don’t get the whole God is our morality argument. The goalposts always get moved.
In the classic, Thomistic sense God is existence and the first uncaused cause. Therefore He cannot be within time because He simultaneously undergirds the entirety of the past, present, and future. If the past ceased to exist, there would be no causal connection that would lead to the present. If the future ceased to exist, it’s self-evident that the material ceases to exist if time continues linearly forward.What does it mean to be outside of time?
This is the premise of an infinite regress, which is an illogical proposition akin to having a chandelier perpetually 1 link short of reaching the ceiling that would suspend it. At any point in the regress the chandelier is falling, therefore the chandelier falls. A final link (uncaused cause) is necessary to break the infinite regress and suspend the chandelier.Once we can figure out that barrier, we will change our time reference point back to the next barrier of our understanding.
Given that the Bible was divinely inspired, the answer can neither be yes nor no since we do not control God nor when He intervenes. Do you believe that science alone informs our understanding of reality? I too am impressed with science’s predictive successes, but to claim that its reproducibility is grounds for it being the ultimate means for rational inquiry seems to be a non-sequitur. Not to mention, the very claim of such is not something provable by science and is therefore self-refuting. I’d propose that philosophy provides the most apt description of reality. And through philosophy, as evidenced above (albeit in a very abbreviated example), we can reason the existence of a god. You may wish to contest my little demonstration, and that’s fine, it’s been the subject of philosophical discussion for centuries, but I’ll leave it to you to prove on scientific grounds alone that science is the preeminent source for rational inquiry since that’s a presupposition of your argument. Otherwise, I don’t see why I’d concern myself with the reproducibility of science.I understand this is the theology here. But if you were to destroy all the theological evidence, would you be able to recreate your holy texts for this theology? You could for the science books for example. So what about reality indicates that this is actually the case?
Your post reveals you do not want to know God.can seek out a deity with the same earnestness as looking for my lost keys. I want to find them. But I am not looking for it like I would if my wife went missing. Since she’s actually apart of my life by her actions and choice to reveal herself to me and to have daily conversations with me.
You’re entitled to your opinion. I used to be atheist. I still grapple with the “miracle” stuff in the Bible and Catholic Church. But there’s only harm in endorsing or believing them when you’re outside looking in and have something to lose (ie your scientistic credentials) in doing so. So it’s not something that really needs to be debated between religious and non-religious since there really isn’t a means by which we can prove or disprove them. It’s a matter of faith. (I understand you didn’t bring this up, I’m just giving my 2cents)Okay. From someone outside of the religion, it seems more likely, to me, that she got pregnant by messing around with her fiance at the time than by divine means. I would have preferred the story of her and her husband creating this person than the deity’s method, since as a husband, I would not want anyone or anything breaking the respect of our married relationship that way. Especially since, during that time, pregnancy out of marriage was potentially a lethal offense for the time. Damaged goods and all that.
Depends on context, but it generally refers to that which is “higher” than mere sense-perception and passions.What does spirit mean?
Well if you’re just using X, do you not wish to ask of X how/why it gave rise to the universe? Why give the beings therein consciousness? I think using a stand-in for the term “god” asks more questions than it answers.I agree with the logical idea of something having a beginning, but the first cause argument does not point to or imply a deity is the answer. So you’re using god for the start of the big bang while I’ll just use X. Why not just use X then? What makes you think it’s more than just X? The event that kicked off the big bang was there before the big bang as well. This I agree on. What is it? No idea. So you seem to be worshiping the idea of the thing that started the big bang. Okay fine with that.
Based on body-count, Religion may ultimately be less-bloody than The State. And beyond those two, what others do you have that don’t eventually become Religion or The State?I’m not denying that it’s a natural phenomena. It makes people feel better about life and people want to feel better about things. I’m saying that it’s not the most effective tool to regulate morality.
Its existence as an obvious, natural, species-wide phenomena slaps this objection right to the ground. If what you’re saying is true, religion wouldn’t have happened.Although appealing to a higher power can be useful, it causes just as many if not more problems than it solves.
The chaos is held in check by ruthless statism (like China or Cuba) or there are simply too many religious people to consider the population as post-religious (Like Norway or the Czech Republic). These nations still have sufficient numbers of people that believe enough in “the old ways” to do the moral heavy lifting that your culture simply is not equipped to do.You can have morality without it. Cultures with very little faith/religion don’t descend into chaos they just don’t.
It’s a mistake to assume that its got to be an either/or. Even when the “finger of God” gets replaced with “tornado”, it’s still considered part of God’s creation by the devout believer. Their God didn’t retreat an inch.And yes it has effected almost all cultures on the planet, but how much of that was morality based versus a god of the gaps we can’t explain nature scenario.
As I said before religion gives people comfort. People want comfort. Religion very well could have existed even with no mention of morality just the promise of an afterlife.Its existence as an obvious, natural, species-wide phenomena slaps this objection right to the ground. If what you’re saying is true, religion wouldn’t have happened
So you believe that the religious members of a majority athiests country keep the athiest moral just by being religious themselves? How in the world does that happen?These nations still have sufficient numbers of people that believe enough in “the old ways” to do the moral heavy lifting that your culture simply is not equipped to do.
The goal post simply gets moved. It happens quiet often as since advances.It’s a mistake to assume that its got to be an either/or. Even when the “finger of God” gets replaced with “tornado”, it’s still considered part of God’s creation by the devout believer. Their God didn’t retreat an inch.
Afterlife without instructions on how to get there?As I said before religion gives people comfort. People want comfort. Religion very well could have existed even with no mention of morality just the promise of an afterlife.
Majority atheist country? There’s only one; China. And they keep order by quietly assuring the death of yourself and your immediate family too, based on the severity of your crime… So Statism.So you believe that the religious members of a majority athiests country keep the athiest moral just by being religious themselves? How in the world does that happen?
Someone had a goalpost that was “convince me tornados are natural phenomena and not the finger of god and I’ll become a non-believer?”The goal post simply gets moved. It happens quiet often as since advances.
Never any winners. Just blunting the tips of the daggers.So who is winning the debates?
Even if you say just countries with a very high number of athiests( I will agree that it’s difficult to acertain by polls. Effectively non religious say they are and those that say they aren’t may believe in some supernatural elements) it still doesn’t make sense. You think that people are afraid to defy their parents religion? For one explain the rise of gay marriage becoming legal in many of those countries. By your logic grandma’s “morality” should have stopped that in it’s tracks. Thankfully it hasnt. I never said the state/courts are perfect. The thing is courts usually don’t claim to be perfect, but God does and that’s the problem. The Bible is full of immoral pronouncements from God. My argument is that it’s not the most effective tool. How do you get that it is if a perfect God orders things like slaughtering women and children?Majority atheist country? There’s only one; China. And they keep order by quietly assuring the death of yourself and your immediate family too, based on the severity of your crime… So Statism.
For the rest, it’s hard for a lot of atheists to spit on mom and dad’s and even grammy and grandpa’s culture while they yet live. Cultural influence is a real thing, even if you don’t want to admit it for polemic reasons.
No your not understanding. Oh I have no doubt that they won’t be persuaded because the goal post is so far back that how could you possibly disprove god? " I feel him so I know he is real" is as unreliable as it is hard to disprove. You honestly don’t think that religion has made claims that science has disproven, only to have religion pull the well it’s symbolic or not literal card? Come on.You’re not understanding. For the true believer, the god of their metaphysical world is also the god of science. Physical discoveries will do little or nothing to dislodge their metaphysical god.
It’s not out of fear. It’s about of respect and tolerance. And maybe a little cultural inertia.Even if you say just countries with a very high number of athiests( I will agree that it’s difficult to acertain by polls. Effectively non religious say they are and those that say they aren’t may believe in some supernatural elements) it still doesn’t make sense. You think that people are afraid to defy their parents religion?
It did, you just apparently don’t realize that.For one explain the rise of gay marriage becoming legal in many of those countries. By your logic grandma’s “morality” should have stopped that in it’s tracks.
That’s not your argument. You’ve not really suggested any kind of alternatives.My argument is that it’s not the most effective tool.
Put away that laughable little straw-man…You honestly don’t think that religion has made claims that science has disproven, only to have religion pull the well it’s symbolic or not literal card? Come on.
Morality derived from empathy with state enforcement. I would argue that’s what’s already going on in many countries so it’s not an alternative, it’s the norm even if you don’t want to believe it. Empathy is not a religious construct. People naturally understand it’s bad to do something to someone that you wouldn’t want done to you. People didn’t get that from religion, religion got it from people. I know you don’t agree with this so I would ask you a hypothetical. Since you believe that “God said don’t do it” keeps people in check, can you logically think of very many people who dont feel bad from an empathetic standpoint about killing someone, don’t care to go to prison for murder, but stops short of murdering someone they don’t like cause God says no? Doesn’t add up. The God says no is redundant. The only thing you are left with is the things that God says no to that have no empathy involved. Masturbation and gay marriage are two that comes to mind. You claim they are wrong, but the God said no thing just doesn’t cut it. There is no other reason that’s why your way fails. That view infringes on other people for no reason other than God said. That’s unacceptable.That’s not your argument. You’ve not really suggested any kind of alternatives.
Definitely not a straw man. You literally of a product of the moving goal post that we are discussing you just don’t realize it. You push it all the way back to its held by God alone then expect a debatePut away that laughable little straw-man…
I’m not commenting on the faith of this part of the story, just pointing out that if an entity forced my wife to become pregnant against her will, volating her and our marriage that is reserved to us alone, that would enrage me against it for the rest of my life.So it’s not something that really needs to be debated between religious and non-religious since there really isn’t a means by which we can prove or disprove them. It’s a matter of faith.