The Atheism vs Theism Debate: I'm frustrated

[crazzeto]

Okay… lets replay:

So… tonyrey says that scepticism is essentially invalid because you’d have to be sceptical of everything. Actually, your response isn’t that bad, I suppose my point was more directed at tonyrey and is more in agreement with your comment, beyond your mention of absolute right and wrong of course.

Nice miss there:

I would suggest there is far more objectivity in this world than we as a society want to belive there is. We’ve been mis-trained by the counter culture of the 60’s which is based, in principal upon questioning everything. Should one ask questions and learn why certain rules and laws are such as they are? Sure that’s a good thing, you should always know the why. But to do so with out first being humble enough to accept that there must be a reason why things are the way they are is plain foolishness. This is the problem inherent with this philosophy which you are advocating, it teaches individuals to automatically reject that which they don’t understand. How can one reject something they don’t understand? Why not start with “well I don’t understand the why yet, but I do know it’s generally accepted as true. So I’ll find out why it must be true, accepting for now that it is and rejecting it only if I find that it can’t be true”.

 

[JackQ]

It was saying that for God to create the universe, he would have to exist before the universe. That’s all.
But I do agree arguments attempting to disprove God are a fools errand.

But time is a part of the universe. To say that God exists “before” the universe is nonsense to begin with. God is outside of time.

 

[JackQ]

Some of Infidel Guy (Reginald Finley)'s arguments are okay but the strong points is many of his guests.

But you are incorrect. If X or anything at all does any creating it must be first positioned within the realm of temporality (TIME) since creation occurs in a linear manner. Movement in time. So God can only create once the universe along with its time exists, and then god would have to operate within time space for the progressive creation process. Otherwise we have to redefine what we are talking about without using temporal terminology.

Don’t you see we are talking about something (God) about which we cannot even articulate and we are elevating what ancient people had to say about it who didn’t even understand germ theory or scantly anything about the way the world in which they lived operated. We evolved originally to be hunter gatherers, but our curiosity which helped us survive evolutionarily made us curious about more and more that has little to do with physical survival and more to do with social, psychological, and spiritual survival.

Summa8447

No, I absolutely reject the assumption that the creation of the universe must happen within time. Time itself is created with the universe. This has been the Catholic position since, at least, St. Augustine. So all the argument does is begin by assuming that the Catholic idea of creation is wrong, which, of course, is what it needs to prove.

As to your last paragraph, I must not see it, because I neither understand your point, nor its relevance.

 

[summa8447]

No, I absolutely reject the assumption that the creation of the universe must happen within time. Time itself is created with the universe. This has been the Catholic position since, at least, St. Augustine. So all the argument does is begin by assuming that the Catholic idea of creation is wrong, which, of course, is what it needs to prove.

As to your last paragraph, I must not see it, because I neither understand your point, nor its relevance.

cre⋅ate
  /kriˈeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kree-eyt] Show IPA verb, -at⋅ed, -at⋅ing, adjective

–verb (used with object)

1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
2. to evolve from one’s own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.
3. Theater. to perform (a role) for the first time or in the first production of a play.
4. to make by investing with new rank or by designating; constitute; appoint: to create a peer.
5. to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to: The announcement created confusion.
6. to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design: to create a revolution; to create an opportunity to ask for a raise.

It’s a verb (action takes place in time). It is causality and is part of the natural world, you know, there is progression, activity, movement related to the laws of nature, like the 1st law of thermodynamics in which energy causes something. Gas burning in car can be energy used to drive a car. Hydrogen and helium in stellar nurseries clump I think (don’t pick at this one because I don’t know the science technical terms) to form universes, stars and solar systems, etc. My point is one energy is transformed into another. Voila, creation. Then the 2nd law is entropy. When one thing breaks down, conservation of energy occurs and it starts over in something new. But before the universe no time exists to even say before, in fact time itself is thought to be much different if you back up to the big bang. Time AS WE KNOW IT likely breaks down much like an event horizon on a black hole.

All I’m saying is creation (an action containing starting point going forward) being an action (temporal) must be within time not outside (eternal).

I’ll help you out. You could wow everybody by saying God is supernatural not natural and he is doing some kind of superaction like supercreation from his eternal vantage point, or that he is much like the author of a novel and we are characters within the novel (Dinesh D’Souza does). God’s reality is before the story began too. But the fault in that analogy would be that novel writers in our world are temporal too not self-created. And temporal novel writers are writing stories about temporal things.

The crux is creating is action and, if action, requires progressive movement (time). But time did not exist before “creation”.

…About the part you could not understand: Maybe you should go back to blood letting with leaches to treat malaria if you ever contract that. The ancients in their wisdom did that. If ancient religions are inspired then maybe their health care is too.

Summa8447

 

[JackQ]

cre⋅ate
  /kriˈeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kree-eyt] Show IPA verb, -at⋅ed, -at⋅ing, adjective

–verb (used with object)

1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.

3. Theater. to perform (a role) for the first time or in the first production of a play.

4. to make by investing with new rank or by designating; constitute; appoint: to create a peer.

5. to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to: The announcement created confusion.

6. to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design: to create a revolution; to create an opportunity to ask for a raise.

It’s a verb (action takes place in time). It is causality and is part of the natural world, you know, there is progression, activity, movement related to the laws of nature, like the 1st law of thermodynamics in which energy causes something. Gas burning in car can be energy used to drive a car. Hydrogen and helium in stellar nurseries clump I think (don’t pick at this one because I don’t know the science technical terms) to form universes, stars and solar systems, etc. My point is one energy is transformed into another. Voila, creation. Then the 2nd law is entropy. When one thing breaks down, conservation of energy occurs and it starts over in something new. But before the universe no time exists to even say before, in fact time itself is thought to be much different if you back up to the big bang. Time AS WE KNOW IT likely breaks down much like an event horizon on a black hole.

All I’m saying is creation (an action containing starting point going forward) being an action (temporal) must be within time not outside (eternal).

I’ll help you out. You could wow everybody by saying God is supernatural not natural and he is doing some kind of superaction like supercreation from his eternal vantage point, or that he is much like the author of a novel and we are characters within the novel (Dinesh D’Souza does). God’s reality is before the story began too. But the fault in that analogy would be that novel writers in our world are temporal too not self-created. And temporal novel writers are writing stories about temporal things.

The crux is creating is action and, if action, requires progressive movement (time). But time did not exist before “creation”.

…About the part you could not understand: Maybe you should go back to blood letting with leaches to treat malaria if you ever contract that. The ancients in their wisdom did that. If ancient religions are inspired then maybe their health care is too.

Summa8447

Well, aren’t you a ray of sunshine?

It’s interesting that you would use causality language in connection with scientific terms. I recall Bertrand Russell being dismissive of the First-cause argument for the existence of God partly on the ground that the notion of causality is unscientific.

It is indeed hard for us to think outside of time and space inasmuch as they form the arena for all of our perceptions. But I’m pretty sure the cosmologists will tell you that time begins at the Big Bang. Thus, time has boundaries. If the universe, including time, is created by God, then surely God must not be within time. You say that is impossible, but that is merely an assertion on your part. There’s nothing in the definition you provided that requires a temporal event. It may be hard for us to imagine, but that is not the same thing as being impossible.

Now I do understand your remark about leaches, but I don’t understand how that supports your claim that creation must be a temporal event.

 

[AntiTheist]

Just imagining a world where people just…die…? And that’s it?

Very, very depressing thought. I wouldn’t have a reason to live, I don’t think.

Well, I can more than imagine it: that’s the world we live in. People die, and then that’s it. Whatever happens after death – if anything – is at best wild speculation and in all likelihood, based on the implications of neuroscience, vain wishes.

Is that “depressing”? Well, it’s a matter of perspective. A child who gets to play with toys might be “depressed” at the knowledge that play time will sooner or later come to an end and that he’ll have to return the toys; but another (wiser) child, rather than moping about the fact that play time will invariably come to an end, might make the most of the time he has.

Just because things are going to come to an end doesn’t mean that we don’t have things we care about now, people we value now, goals we want to accomplish now. Whether these things “ultimately” amount to anything or not is a huge red herring: they matter now, and now is all that we have, when you come down to it.

summa8447:

However, faith offers hope (contemplate Hebrews 11), which I think is an important human need and may override having 100% empirical proof.

It may well be a “human need,” but I personally want my hope to be based on something real.

Now, it sounds to me like you have a full family life, and thus a lot of real things to hope for and value right here and now. Good luck to you in your quest for truth.

 

[tonyrey]

So… tonyrey says that scepticism is essentially invalid because you’d have to be sceptical of everything.

You are misrepresenting me.:
“If you take scepticism to its logical conclusion you believe nothing - which of course is self-refuting.”
I did not say we should never be sceptical…

You have not answered my other post:

Since the** context** is objective it does not follow that there is subjectivity. General rules can be established regardless of the persons concerned, e.g. killing is justified if it is the only way to defend yourself…

 

[M0nkey]

It’s a verb (action takes place in time). It is causality and is part of the natural world, you know, there is progression, activity, movement related to the laws of nature, like the 1st law of thermodynamics in which energy causes something. Gas burning in car can be energy used to drive a car. Hydrogen and helium in stellar nurseries clump I think (don’t pick at this one because I don’t know the science technical terms) to form universes, stars and solar systems, etc. My point is one energy is transformed into another. Voila, creation. Then the 2nd law is entropy. When one thing breaks down, conservation of energy occurs and it starts over in something new. But before the universe no time exists to even say before, in fact time itself is thought to be much different if you back up to the big bang. Time AS WE KNOW IT likely breaks down much like an event horizon on a black hole.

Thus, time has boundaries. If the universe, including time, is created by God, then surely God must not be within time.

I think you guys are talking about two completely different things. Time began with the Big Bang as there is evidence that this is when the known universe began, with that, all matter and energy that would ever exist was created. Therefore, we can assert that God created something out of nothing, i.e., ex nihilo, as He being the Creator was outside of time before the world began. Makes sense? Now we can go into the philosophical exhortation for time, I personally think St. Augustine of Hippo did a remarkable job explaining it, but I’m not going to go into that.

Just because things are going to come to an end doesn’t mean that we don’t have things we care about now, people we value now, goals we want to accomplish now. Whether these things “ultimately” amount to anything or not is a huge red herring: they matter now, and now is all that we have, when you come down to it.

So, your belief system amounts to this: I am nothing, therefore everything means nothing. Hence, if everything means nothing why do you still live? It sounds like you are living in a nightmare.

 

[AntiTheist]

So, your belief system amounts to this: I am nothing, therefore everything means nothing.

No. It may be the case that, in the long run, there won’t be some “ultimate” meaning to things – but whether or not that’s the case (we can’t tell for sure), there is plenty of meaning that things have right now, to me.

Hence, if everything means nothing why do you still live?

Because everything doesn’t mean nothing. I value things right now – the fact that I value them gives them a lot of meaning to me.

Look, if I find a flower beautiful, it’s not going to get any less beautiful when I realize that it won’t last forever and ever and ever and ever. And it would be childish for me to insist that the only way I could value that flower was for it to last forever and ever and ever and ever.

People have lots of things that give their lives meaning: family, friends, work, hobbies, intellectual pursuits, community activities, public service, etc., etc. Those things don’t go away or become less important when you realize that they don’t last forever and ever and ever and ever.

 

[Touchstone]

Look, if I find a flower beautiful, it’s not going to get any less beautiful when I realize that it won’t last forever and ever and ever and ever. And it would be childish for me to insist that the only way I could value that flower was for it to last forever and ever and ever and ever.

People have lots of things that give their lives meaning: family, friends, work, hobbies, intellectual pursuits, community activities, public service, etc., etc. Those things don’t go away or become less important when you realize that they don’t last forever and ever and ever and ever.

“I’ll tell you a secret. Something they don’t teach you in your temple. The Gods envy us. They envy us because we’re mortal, because any moment might be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we’re doomed. You will never be lovelier than you are now. We will never be here again.”

-Achilles, *Troy *(the movie)

I don’t think that line is actually in the Iliad, but it points to an even stronger version of what you are saying here. Not only does these beautiful things “not become less important” because they are impermanent, fleeting, they become more beautiful, more meaningful because they are temporary, precious. What is more banal than that which is eternal? A beautiful day like today here in Minnesota (after many days of cold and gray) is quickly going. It is important and meaningful because it will soon be gone, a fact which will get me out on the path very shortly after I post this.

It is because we are here but a few decades and because there is nothing left of us once we die that our days, or actions have so much meaning, import. The small number of days we have makes them precious. We don’t have an eternity to “get things right”, or to convalesce in bliss in paradise, and that draws a big bold underline under every little thing we do. Justices left undone will be forever left undone, so it is meaningful, important to work for justice in the here and now. Love left unexpressed, un-acted on, undelivered will never be love at all after we die, so the time is now, to love, and love deeply, while we may.

Eternity just cheapens and dilutes the real import and meaning that does obtain from our mortal nature. The flower is beautiful in part because it is fragile, vulnerable, doomed to demise and decay in just a short while. But while he admire it along the field, it is glorious, and its beauty is inextricably tied to its mortality. It is meaningful by virtue of its temporary nature.

-TS

 

[liquidpele]

Nice miss there:

I skipped that intentionally as I saw it as a “lets blame the 60s get off my lawn” tangent. You also implied in it that my position was that we should reject things we don’t understand which is ridiculous and a straw man.

 

[liquidpele]

You are misrepresenting me.:
“If you take scepticism to its logical conclusion you believe nothing - which of course is self-refuting.”
I did not say we should never be sceptical…

You have not answered my other post:

Since the** context** is objective it does not follow that there is subjectivity. General rules can be established regardless of the persons concerned, e.g. killing is justified if it is the only way to defend yourself…

Then my bad, I thought that was what was being implied.

To answer your question, I don’t believe in absolute morals handed down from a supernatural authority, and as such physical context is objective, emotional and social is not. In any case, I didn’t want to get into that since the origin of morality is a whole bag of worms we’ve discussed before.

 

[teachccd]

I don’t think that line is actually in the Iliad, but it points to an even stronger version of what you are saying here. Not only does these beautiful things “not become less important” because they are impermanent, fleeting, they become more beautiful, more meaningful because they are temporary, precious. What is more banal than that which is eternal? A beautiful day like today here in Minnesota (after many days of cold and gray) is quickly going. It is important and meaningful because it will soon be gone, a fact which will get me out on the path very shortly after I post this.

It is because we are here but a few decades and because there is nothing left of us once we die that our days, or actions have so much meaning, import. The small number of days we have makes them precious. We don’t have an eternity to “get things right”, or to convalesce in bliss in paradise, and that draws a big bold underline under every little thing we do. Justices left undone will be forever left undone, so it is meaningful, important to work for justice in the here and now. Love left unexpressed, un-acted on, undelivered will never be love at all after we die, so the time is now, to love, and love deeply, while we may.

Eternity just cheapens and dilutes the real import and meaning that does obtain from our mortal nature. The flower is beautiful in part because it is fragile, vulnerable, doomed to demise and decay in just a short while. But while he admire it along the field, it is glorious, and its beauty is inextricably tied to its mortality. It is meaningful by virtue of its temporary nature.

-TS

You exhort such a wonderful reason to appreciate beauty. But for what?? How does appreciating beauty sustain our existence? Can’t one metabolize equally as well with the absence of the recognition of beauty which in and of itself is subjective?

You speak so solidly on the fact that there is no afterlife. By what authority can you render such statements? Why should I believe you over someone who states that there is a Creator and an afterlife? Your faith is in the ‘here and now’ and your faith is far greater than mine since you believe that something somehow came from nothing. How can you prove to me that there is no afterlife and that the beauty that you describe is not just a foretaste of something ultimately more fulfilling?

You formulated your own ideals of what love is and that is subjective since we could never even define love left on its own merits. Without a straight line how could we ever realize a crooked line. Without an infinite Love (God) how can we define any degree of love. What differentiates us from the instinctive love of an animal? And I certainly do not see many animals sitting back and reflecting on the wonders of a beautiful sunset.

It never ceases to amaze me how the ordered universe and the distinction between humans and animals remain a given for the atheist. But then perhaps you are left with the wonderment of how I can see beyond the beauty of this world and acknowledge that such beauty could never create itself…teachccd

 

[AntiTheist]

Thank you, Touchstone, for that quote and those lovely thoughts. Indeed, it is our knowledge that things will come to an end that makes everything precious and gives us motivation to act.

teachccd:

You exhort such a wonderful reason to appreciate beauty. But for what?? How does appreciating beauty sustain our existence? Can’t one metabolize equally as well with the absence of the recognition of beauty which in and of itself is subjective?

Of course we can live without appreciating beauty. But most humans value the act of appreciating things that we find beautiful. It doesn’t “sustain our existence” to appreciate beauty. It’s just something we like doing.

You speak so solidly on the fact that there is no afterlife. By what authority can you render such statements?

I don’t think that many people would say that we know 100% for sure that there is no afterlife, but since there is zero evidence that there is an afterlife, there is no reason to accept the claim that there is one.

The only life we know that exists is this one. And we do not have any evidence that suggests there is some other life after this one. That’s the point – things die, and then that’s it, as far as we can tell. Now, perhaps there is a next life, but I’m not willing to base my hopes on some wild speculation.

How can you prove to me that there is no afterlife and that the beauty that you describe is not just a foretaste of something ultimately more fulfilling?

The way claims work is that the person making the claim has to provide evidence to demonstrate that it’s true. It’s not up to the people who say, “I don’t believe you” to provide evidence. And in fact, the default position is always not to believe a claim until there is evidence.

Without an infinite Love (God) how can we define any degree of love.

Love is a label that we put on certain emotions. “Love” isn’t some absolute “thing” out there, but a term for various kinds of feelings (and there are, obviously, lots of different kinds of love – love of a spouse, love of a parent, love of a child, love of a pet, love of a good book, etc.).

What you’re asking is nonsensical. It’s like saying, “Without infinite red, how could we identify degrees of redness?”

the ordered universe and the distinction between humans and animals remain a given for the atheist.

They’re not a “given.” The universe, in the first place, is a wild place, with dying stars, supernovas, blackholes, planet-destroying comets and asteroids; our planet is hanging out in some obscure corner, where 99% of species that have ever existed on its surface are currently extinct. This is some “order,” isn’t it?

And the distinction between humans and animals? We share a huge amount of the genetic code with all other life on this planet. We are differentiated mainly by virtue of our higher brain functions.

 

[teachccd]

…Look, if I find a flower beautiful, it’s not going to get any less beautiful when I realize that it won’t last forever and ever and ever and ever. And it would be childish for me to insist that the only way I could value that flower was for it to last forever and ever and ever and ever…

.

What exactly is beauty? Why is it necessary that we even recognize beauty if it were not to seek it’s Creator? Doesn’t every piece of artwork have an artist? Why would a planet that created itself through some “explosion” order itself to a point whereby its inhabitants would need to seek beauty? Isn’t beauty, in and of itself, our ability to rationalize something greater than ourselves since it is that image that captures our amazement and draws us to itself? Something perhaps like a believer searching for God??

When this world eventually comes to an end and there is no “forever and ever and ever and ever” then to what value do I hold these short moments that you hang on to so preciously. Even in this life we strive to do good BECAUSE there are consequences to each and every act and we acknowledge the future that is impacted by those consequences. What is the realization of this “life” if it is but a fleeting moment? To who do we render accountablity if we so choose to not love or find each moment so precious. Yes, it is childish to think that a flower will last forever and ever and ever but I think it even more childish to think that when you close your eyes everything disappears…teachccd

 

[Touchstone]

You exhort such a wonderful reason to appreciate beauty. But for what?? How does appreciating beauty sustain our existence? Can’t one metabolize equally as well with the absence of the recognition of beauty which in and of itself is subjective?

Well, no. Try it. Metabolizing without the appreciation of beauty is not nearly as gratifying as metabolizing with appreciation of beauty. Beauty is one one form of apprehension that invests meaning and value in metabolizing. We have an innate drive to survive and reproduce, but we also have minds capable of all sorts of ideas and conceptual processing. Beauty is one concept that provides context and pleasure and satisfaction, and thus contributes to the “meaningfulness” of our lives. It’s not the only such source of meaning, but a powerful one.

You speak so solidly on the fact that there is no afterlife. By what authority can you render such statements?

Just the vast number of observations we can draw upon regarding the activity of the mind and death. When sentient beings die, all interactions with their minds cease. Anything’s possible, but an afterlife is a gratuitous construct – we don’t need it to explain the evidence we have. The evidence we have is much more easily explained by the hypothesis that death is the conclusive end of the self, the complete destruction of the mind.

Why should I believe you over someone who states that there is a Creator and an afterlife?

It depends on what you want. If you want the most reasonable, parsimonious explanation to the question, death-as-final is the way to go. If you want a set of beliefs that avoid the uncomfortable or stressing effects of that realization, then you should adopt some belief that gives you what you want, there.

Your faith is in the ‘here and now’ and your faith is far greater than mine since you believe that something somehow came from nothing.

I have no such faith. It may (or may not) be that “something always was”. I don’t know and don’t have a way to know either way, and am not committed to either proposition.

How can you prove to me that there is no afterlife and that the beauty that you describe is not just a foretaste of something ultimately more fulfilling?

I can’t and won’t try. There’s no reason to entertain such beliefs in the first place if your goal is to reason from the evidence, however. I can’t prove leprechauns or unicorns don’t exist either, and won’t try to do so for you. But we’ve no basis to arrive at such beliefs in the first place, using reasoning applied to evidence. Those beliefs obtain for other reasons.

You formulated your own ideals of what love is and that is subjective since we could never even define love left on its own merits. Without a straight line how could we ever realize a crooked line.

That’s an interesting example as “straight lines”, like “perfect circles” are abstractions, concepts only. There are no straight lines or perfect circles in the real world, just better or worse approximations of them. In general, “perfect” points to an abstraction we develop in our minds, an abstraction reality can only approximate.

Without an infinite Love (God) how can we define any degree of love. What differentiates us from the instinctive love of an animal? And I certainly do not see many animals sitting back and reflecting on the wonders of a beautiful sunset.

How can we define “degrees of temperature” without an “infinite heat”? Well, the concept of “infinite heat” is just an abstraction, and a confused one at that. There is no such thing in the real world. But nevertheless, we are perfectly capable of measuring degrees of temperature, and distinguishing objectively an ice cube as having a lower temperature than a pot full of steam sitting next to it on the counter.

It never ceases to amaze me how the ordered universe and the distinction between humans and animals remain a given for the atheist. But then perhaps you are left with the wonderment of how I can see beyond the beauty of this world and acknowledge that such beauty could never create itself…teachccd

I don’t think “beauty created itself”. Nature created the beautiful, as well as the unbeautiful, as well as the beings that make the distinctions between “beautiful” and “not beautiful”. As far as we can tell, and our knowledge on this grows deeper and stronger by the year, these are emergent phenomena, the product of an impersonal universe.

-TS

 

[AntiTheist]

What exactly is beauty?

Without going off on a huge tangent, it’s a value judgment. Not everyone finds the same things beautiful – it’s not an objective quality that inheres in things themselves, but a judgment that we make about things by the standards of our own subjective values.

Why is it necessary that we even recognize beauty if it were not to seek it’s Creator?

It’s not necessary – I just explained that appreciating beauty is something we generally like doing. That’s it.

Why would a planet that created itself through some “explosion” order itself to a point whereby its inhabitants would need to seek beauty?

A planet that created itself through some explosion? Did you seriously just type that? Do you have any understanding at all of contemporary science and what actual scientists, who spend their lives studying actual evidence, have to say?

I’m sorry to say this, but I get the impression that you’re someone who’s not only ignorant of basic things that we as a species have learned, but that you’re proud of that ignorance.

Even if we had no answers at all to the question you’re posing, it wouldn’t make the answer “A supernatural being did it” any more likely to be true. In the absence of evidence, the answer “I don’t know” is perfectly acceptable.

However, the evidence we have seems to suggest that aesthetic appreciation is a side-effect of the development of our brains.

When this world eventually comes to an end and there is no “forever and ever and ever and ever” then to what value do I hold these short moments that you hang on to so preciously.

We’ll likely all be long dead before “this world eventually comes to an end.” You won’t be around then to value anything. “Value” is necessarily of the now and in the now.

We generally value things either for their own sake or because they are conducive to other things that we value, as you point out below.

Even in this life we strive to do good BECAUSE there are consequences to each and every act and we acknowledge the future that is impacted by those consequences.

Exactly. You’re making my case for me here. People act based on things they value right here and right now. Even if they stopped believing in a god or a “next life,” they’d have lots of good reasons to continue to value the things they do, as you’ve just pointed out.

To who do we render accountablity if we so choose to not love or find each moment so precious.

We’re accountable to ourselves and to others. If you want to live your life as a jerk and be mean to everybody, then you’ll be a lonely person. If you want to not find each moment precious and instead spend your whole life pining for some fantasy land after death, then you’ll miss the beauty of the now. That’s it.

 

[teachccd]

teachccd: Of course we can live without appreciating beauty. But most humans value the act of appreciating things that we find beautiful. It doesn’t “sustain our existence” to appreciate beauty. It’s just something we like doing.

Something we “like doing” and “things we find beautiful” are subjective and presuppose that there is more to life than mere existence. What exactly is beauty? How can we appreciate this abstract understanding of what you later say has no order? Why is it that a flower that has an arranged design and color pattern will appeal to our senses when there is no order as you later state? You must define beauty in order for me to understand exactly what it is that we like to do.

I don’t think that many people would say that we know 100% for sure that there is no afterlife, but since there is zero evidence that there is an afterlife, there is no reason to accept the claim that there is one.

You accept zero evidence. I’m sure that those who saw Christ rise form the dead would say otherwise. You simply divert from anything that will prove an afterlife. You again have no authority to provide as fact that there is zero evidence of no afterlife. Since you would not acknowledge anything spiritual then how could you list anything spiritual as eveidence for an afterlife? Your claim, as you state later, is that there is no afterlife and since you admit that there is not 100% assurance of this your statement refutes itself.

The only life we know that exists is this one. And we do not have any evidence that suggests there is some other life after this one. That’s the point – things die, and then that’s it, as far as we can tell. Now, perhaps there is a next life, but I’m not willing to base my hopes on some wild speculation.

The way claims work is that the person making the claim has to provide evidence to demonstrate that it’s true. It’s not up to the people who say, “I don’t believe you” to provide evidence. And in fact, the default position is always not to believe a claim until there is evidence.

Or to accept the evidence provided. I can never prove to a blind man that the sun rises every morning. That doesn’t make the sun go away. There is evidence that an afterlife exists but anything I say would be immediately discounted as long as you remain on one side of the fence. Yes, much is based on faith but so is the understanding that Abraham Lincoln was our 16th president based on our faith of the accuracy of the historical accounts.

Love is a label that we put on certain emotions. “Love” isn’t some absolute “thing” out there, but a term for various kinds of feelings (and there are, obviously, lots of different kinds of love – love of a spouse, love of a parent, love of a child, love of a pet, love of a good book, etc.).

But love , as emotions, is not a physical feature as you noted. So why do we need to love anything, be it our spouse, parent or book? What does this need fulfill in us if there is nothing more than an evolutionary compounding of our existence? How was “love” created in the evolutionary process?

What you’re asking is nonsensical. It’s like saying, “Without infinite red, how could we identify degrees of redness?”

Nonsensical? The term degrees exhibits a comparison. Who’s not making sense here?

They’re not a “given.” The universe, in the first place, is a wild place, with dying stars, supernovas, blackholes, planet-destroying comets and asteroids; our planet is hanging out in some obscure corner, where 99% of species that have ever existed on its surface are currently extinct. This is some “order,” isn’t it?

Periodic table ring a bell?? Are you really going to look at cell structures and DNA structures and our planet in relation to the sun and all of the other ordered elements and tell us that it resulted from chaos and remains chaotic? So just the parts that work are recognized as order and the rest is chaotic. What about your beautiful flower? How do we interpret chaos into beauty? We are more magnificient than I thought!

And the distinction between humans and animals? We share a huge amount of the genetic code with all other life on this planet. We are differentiated mainly by virtue of our higher brain functions.

That’s it?? Really? So why is there such a drastic gap between the smartest animal and the human species? Don’t try and convince me that a beaver buildin a dam reaches over to a human designing a high rise.

Perhaps here the burden of proof rests on you to prove to me that humans do indeed have highr brain functions. Sometimes I think that we are jsut smart enough to realize how dumb we really are…teachccd

 

[M0nkey]

I don’t think that line is actually in the Iliad, but it points to an even stronger version of what you are saying here.

Glad to know you take your philosophy from Hollywood; and for the record, Greeks did believe in an immortal soul (read Plato’s “The Cave”).

 

[teachccd]

A planet that created itself through some explosion? Did you seriously just type that? Do you have any understanding at all of contemporary science and what actual scientists, who spend their lives studying actual evidence, have to say?

I’m sorry to say this, but I get the impression that you’re someone who’s not only ignorant of basic things that we as a species have learned, but that you’re proud of that ignorance.

Even if we had no answers at all to the question you’re posing, it wouldn’t make the answer “A supernatural being did it” any more likely to be true. In the absence of evidence, the answer “I don’t know” is perfectly acceptable.

However, the evidence we have seems to suggest that aesthetic appreciation is a side-effect of the development of our brains.

Ignorance is again subjective given the evidence at hand and one’s willingness to accept that evidence. Seems to me like you are the pot calling the kettle black. The word “ignorance” comes from the root “ignore”. That is what most atheists spend their lives doing and that is to ignore anything supernatural. An atheist’s best conclusion is to always discount anything that cannot be empirically proven. Permeating that thought process would need a bulldozer and then some. Scientists who spend their lives studying only continue to discover the wonders of God. No scientist has ever created anything out of nothing.

The term evidence that you seem to adhere to is also subjective. I have faith in God and you have faith in scientists. Since you did not perform the experiments yourself and you did not make these grand discoveries you are basing your faith on the findings of men who keep changing their theories. Pluto was a planet and now it"s not? Are you willing to bet your life on these “findings” that come from contemporary scientists. Well guess what? In a hundred years the future generations’ “contemporary” scientists will have found different theories to override the ones that you so adhere to today.

We can throw that “ignorance” ball back and forth since there are no ground rules. You say I’m wrong because you are unwilling to accept evidence for a Creator and I will continue to know that you are wrong since I cannot place my faith in scientists. I am not saying that science is to be ignored and that many huge scientific discoveries did not benefit the world greatly. I am merely stating that faith and science walk hand in hand and are not meant to oppose each other. Scientist discover what God created and the complexities that science shows me even boosts my faith higher.