There is no God

[Gilbert_Keith]

John Doren

*i make what i continue to believe is the unobjectionable moral point that attacking people’s moral character is NOT the way to go. EVER.
*
Nor have I attacked the moral character of anyone in this forum… EVER.

You are self righteous and rude here. Clean up your act.

I suppose next you’ll be scolding the Psalmist for pointing out that the fool in his heart says there is no God. (Psalms 14:1)

I

 

[Alois]

Scott Waddell:

you need to substantiate that the Middle Ages were a stagnant cesspool.

Gotta love the typical time wasting arguments. You know as well as I do that our life-span, ease-of-living, and general well-being were all lower back then due to the lack of health care, living conditions, and human ignorance.

And that the modern atrocities were exceptions.

Only an idiot, or someone being purposely dense (you) would assume they aren’t. There have been atrocities throughout history, modern day ones aren’t an extraordinary, they’re the continuation of the rule that there will always be scattered atrocities.

They sure are awfully big exceptions.

You’ll need to substantiate that they are big. :yawn:

Also, if we grant your presuppositions about the Inquisitions, you need to establish that they were the norm and not an exception.

If this was the case, then you’d need to substantiate that atrocities today aren’t the exception. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Even if you could, this would not necessarily warrant painting the Middle Ages as a stagnant cesspool.

No, I leave it to the history books, and the accounts of the people who lived through it themselves.

I agree which goes directly to my point that there is no discernable moral advancement.

Based on what? Your morals? Those of different religon were persecuted in the Middle Ages, they aren’t now. Is that moral advancement? To some yes, to others no.

Again, this does not establish the Middle Ages as a stagnant cesspool.

Then look to the historians. They’ll tell you the same as I am.

Again, none of this establishes the Middle Ages as a stagnant cesspool.

Again, one needs to merely look at history to verify that. Do you believe that technological advancement and standards-of-living were better in the Middle Ages, or for that matter, flowing with the pattern of progress? Or do you only consider advancement in moral terms when compared with the “morals” set forth by the Bible?

 

[Alois]

RobNY:

The positive side being that when you spot editorializing, you can get rid of it. The negative being the various edit-wars.

I think if they were to be more agressive with IP banning repeat offenders from editing, it would solve a large part of that problem. Most wouldn’t know how to use a proxy anyway.

Don’t get my wrong, I do agree, but it’s not quite what I’m looking for. “Because your life depends on it,” is a very good practical solution, but I meant more, how can we know what our senses are accurate. They may be accurate sometimes, but not other times. How can we verify that our senses are accurate? (Or is it impossible to?)

There really is no answer to that question, but it leads to solipsism, the belief that nothing in the world can be real besides yourself.

Quoted from another forum:

Alf:

Solipsism gets you nowhere. It is the ultimate of self deception to claim that the whole of reality can be a deception.

Either way, I’m here to debate about whether it is logical to believe in a god, not to debate about whether or not one exists. It is logical to assume that, after questioning, your sense are correct. It is illogical to assume that nothing is correct.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Alois

Yet when (as was done earlier) you try to twist this into saying that you have more morality, it fails. You do not need a moral standard set by God to behave morally.

We do have more morality in this sense … we have a morality that is not subject to the shifting sands of personal whim. The Devil is above all the Father of Lies. He persuades us to reject God, but then he persuades us to concoct our own moral values and our own laws without God. First he teaches us how to make wrong seem right and right seem wrong. There being no God, who is to say what is right and what is wrong but ME? My own indomitable selfish self.

And so moral chaos rules the land … as we see it is doing today. It’s O.K. to kill the unborn. It’s O.K. to marry someone of your own sex. It’s O.K. to have sex with children.

Moral insanity unleashed across the land because men and women put their will before God’s will.

Sad indeed.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Alois

The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have done to yourself. It is a rule that has been passed down outside of religon for ages.

But the last time I looked it has nowhere been more passed down than in the Christian religion.

*Empathy is another trait that is not passed down through religon as well.
*
Empathy is not encouraged by Christianity? Have you read the Gospels lately? How do you define empathy? Surely you don’t think empathy came from those atheists Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. Indeed, Christ himself condemns to hell anyone who does not feel for others and do something to assuage their suffering. (Matthew 25)

 

[EnterTheBowser]

EnterTheBowser:

Regarding atheism and morality, there are two arguments, both bad arguments on the face of it, and there are problems beyond that.

A:
1: Theists are more likely to be good than atheists
2: Therefore theism is true

B
1: Theism can justify morality
2: Atheism cannot justify morality
3: Therefore theism is true

They’re both bad arguments because the conclusions do not follow from the premises. I don’t know how A can be salvaged. To make B work, there needs to be the additional premise “Morality is justified.” As of yet I have not seen support for this premise.

EnterTheBowser:

Does the word “Euthyphro” mean anything to anyone? It’s a very old question, but here it goes: given that God has commanded moral system X, did God command this system because it is a good moral system, or is it a good moral system because God commanded it?

Now, if God commanded it because it was good - if there are reasons why it is good - then what exactly does God have to do with it? I mean, even if God hadn’t commanded it, then these reasons would still be reasons for X to be a good system. So if that’s the answer - if there’s any kind of reason at all for God to command X - then an atheistic universe is as meaningful as a theistic one.

On the other hand, if it’s a good system solely because God commanded it… then should we really consider it a good system? It seems to be a rather arbitrary sort of morality - God could just as easily have commanded murder, rape, and betrayal (remember, there’s no reason why these things are wrong aside from God’s command; otherwise we’re back to the other answer to the question). And if God had commanded these things, would we want to say that they’re good? Lastly, this sort of God can’t be called a good God. We wouldn’t praise a person for picking an arbitrary set of rules and then following them; why should we praise God?

For the people I’ve been discussing abiogensis and beginnings with: I’ll try to formulate a reply soon, but right now I have tarried overlong on a particular assignment and am quite busy.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Alois

Explain to me why, per capita, there are exponentially more Christians in prisons than atheists. That’s some great morality they have, eh?

I work in the prison ministry. I have never seen an atheist volunteer in the prison ministry. I have never seen an atheist in the prison trying to persuade the men that they can develop sound moral principles without God. Real empathy would demand they visit the prisons to do just that.

There are not more Christians in prisons than atheists. The prison where I volunteer is loaded with men who never go to chapel. Very few do. The Christians do. The others are contemptuous of religion. They are **A **(without) Theos (God). The redivism rate for prisoners who never go to chapel is strikingly higher than for those who do (theists).

Go figure.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

BROWSER

Both of the following arguments are saturated with pragmatism, which is not typically the Catholic point of view.

Theism is not true because theists are more likely to be good than atheists. Theism is true because it makes more sense than atheism.

Likewise, theism is not true because it can justify morality. But atheism makes no sense because it cannot justify morality.

*1: Theists are more likely to be good than atheists
2: Therefore theism is true

1: Theism can justify morality
2: Atheism cannot justify morality
3: Therefore theism is true
*
*

 

[Alois]

We do have more morality in this sense … we have a morality that is not subject to the shifting sands of personal whim.

Actually, you have less in this sense. Morals that change with enhanced knowledge are more “moral” than those that are set by dogma. Part of being moral is being flexible. Part of being moral is acceptance.

The Devil is above all the Father of Lies. He persuades us to reject God, but then he persuades us to concoct our own moral values and our own laws without God.

This is only true if you assume the existence of a devil. I’ve said a thousand times now: you have to set up your argument before you attempt to reach a conclusion with it.

]First he teaches us how to make wrong seem right and right seem wrong. There being no God, who is to say what is right and what is wrong but ME? My own indomitable selfish self.

You’re assuming the existence of a God. I am not debating hypothetically, I am debating what is. You’ll have to prove that a God is real, that he is all good, that he sets moral codes for us, and that these moral codes are good to prove that you and your religon’s codes are more moral.

Let’s not forget that different codes have been set throughout the world in and out of religon. Do you have the nerve to claim that yours alone is correct?

And so moral chaos rules the land … as we see it is doing today. It’s O.K. to kill the unborn. It’s O.K. to marry someone of your own sex. It’s O.K. to have sex with children.

Refer to the above. You can say these are wrong all you want, but where’s your backing?

Moral insanity unleashed across the land because men and women put their will before God’s will.

You’re making the same assumptions.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Alois:

Again, one needs to merely look at history to verify that. Do you believe that technological advancement and standards-of-living were better in the Middle Ages, or for that matter, flowing with the pattern of progress? Or do you only consider advancement in moral terms when compared with the “morals” set forth by the Bible?

Can we at least agree that referring to the Middle Ages as a stagnant cesspool is a bit hyperbolic? Yes, there are better standards of living, creature comforts, etc. today. My point was that we are still stuck with the same intractable problems like greed, war, crime, poverty, disease etc. That is, while us wonderful moderns have much to be pleased about, we should not be excessively patting ourselves on the back as if we are superior in every way to our predecessors.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Gilbert Keith:

Both of the following arguments are saturated with pragmatism, which is not typically the Catholic point of view.

Theism is not true because theists are more likely to be good than atheists. Theism is true because it makes more sense than atheism.

Likewise, theism is not true because it can justify morality. But atheism makes no sense because it cannot justify morality.

…

Tell it to the theists; they’re the ones making these arguments. I’m just pointing out that they are bad ones.

Incidentally, stating that “atheism makes no sense because it cannot justify morality” still depends on the premise that morality isn, in fact, justified.

PS: It’s Bowser, not Browser (you know, King of the Koopas, mortal enemy of Mario and Luigi?)

 

[Alois]

Gilbert Keith:

But the last time I looked it has nowhere been more passed down than in the Christian religion.

You missed my point. It was created outside of religon. It is a moral code that does not need the backing of a religon, and is indeed the backing of many different religous moral codes.

Empathy is not encouraged by Christianity? Have you read the Gospels lately?

I never said it wasn’t. I can, however, pick out many cases where empathy wasn’t present throughout the history of Christianity. That’s not my point though.

How do you define empathy?

Understanding of another’s pains and emotions.

Surely you don’t think empathy came from those atheists Stalin, Mao, and Hitler.

Strawman. There have been just as many who claimed to be Christian that lack empathy. Stop picking out those who ignore morals as an example of morals.

Indeed, Christ himself condemns to hell anyone who does not feel for others and do something to assuage their suffering. (Matthew 25)

I am not arguing that Christians don’t have some of these moral fundamentals. Quit throwing out strawmen.

 

[Alois]

Scott Waddell:

Can we at least agree that referring to the Middle Ages as a stagnant cesspool is a bit hyperbolic?

Yes, I’ll agree with that.

Yes, there are better standards of living, creature comforts, etc. today. My point was that we are still stuck with the same intractable problems like greed, war, crime, poverty, disease etc. That is, while us wonderful moderns have much to be pleased about, we should not be excessively patting ourselves on the back as if we are superior in every way to our predecessors.

However, we are more superior than our predecessors in many ways. That was the jist of my point. I agree that saying we’re better in every way is hyperbole, but that’s not what I’m saying. We have progressed, and it was through scientific advancement.

 

[RobNY]

Alois:

I think if they were to be more agressive with IP banning repeat offenders from editing, it would solve a large part of that problem. Most wouldn’t know how to use a proxy anyway.

Some trolls can be slippery devils. I would imagine that most aren’t, and that we only really notice the slippery ones. It’s a point Wiki’s going to have to deal with eventually.

There really is no answer to that question, but it leads to solipsism, the belief that nothing in the world can be real besides yourself.

Quoted from another forum:

I agree that it is silly, but I’m just wondering where exactly the burden of ‘reason,’ and ‘proof’ breaks down.

Either way, I’m here to debate about whether it is logical to believe in a god, not to debate about whether or not one exists. It is logical to assume that, after questioning, your sense are correct. It is illogical to assume that nothing is correct.

I don’t think it is logical or illogical. If there is nothing by which we can verify our senses, then ‘questioning’ is simply a floating or shifting standard by which to judge the truthfulness of our senses.

I do agree that it is illogical-- well, not illogical per se, but unreasonable-- to assume that nothing is correct, as well as the opposite. The question then becomes, how can we possibly know what is correct and to what degree. (I.e., even if some perceptions are true, we don’t know which ones are, so we can’t use the true perceptions as standards to judge our other perceptions.)

(I of course, don’t really have these reservations…)

There really is no answer to that question, but it leads to solipsism, the belief that nothing in the world can be real besides yourself.

Well, I was viewing it more in the sense that your own self is all that can be verified. I do agree that it is a silly position to hold, but to say that ‘because it leads to solipsism,’ that it is wrong is merely an appeal to consequences, right?

 

[JSmitty2005]

I know everyone is all anti-link posting here, but like I said before, this is finals week for me so I don’t have time for a long discussion. I just thought I’d post this one since it seemed applicable:

Theism, Atheism, and Rationality

 

[Alois]

Gilbert Keith:

I work in the prison ministry. I have never seen an atheist volunteer in the prison ministry.

Perhaps that’s because atheists don’t go to religous organizations to volunteer? When I volunteer (and yes, I do volunteer) I don’t go to a strongly Christian organization to do so, just as I imagine many Chrsitians wouldn’t go to a strongly pagan organization to volunteer.

I have never seen an atheist in the prison trying to persuade the men that they can develop sound moral principles without God.

That’s because we don’t proselytize.

Real empathy would demand they visit the prisons to do just that.

Empathy is not throwing your beliefs in the face of another. Especially when those others are stuck in a confined space such as prison. Empathy is understanding that others have their own beliefs. Empathy is assisting others when they’re in pain, and not doing something to another when you know it will cause them pain. As an atheist, I do all three. Every atheist I know also does the same.

There are not more Christians in prisons than atheists. The prison where I volunteer is loaded with men who never go to chapel. Very few do.

So? Many Christians don’t attend church.

The Christians do.

Hello “No true Scotsman” fallacy, how are you doing today? If a Christian declares himself a Christian, he’s a Christian.

The others are contemptuous of religion. They are **A **(without) Theos (God).

No, they have their own form of God. They are anything but atheists.

The redivism rate for prisoners who never go to chapel is strikingly higher than for those who do (theists).

Going to need some hard statistics for this, if you don’t mind.

 

[Alois]

I agree that it is silly, but I’m just wondering where exactly the burden of ‘reason,’ and ‘proof’ breaks down.

Pretty much where you’ve pinned it. When we begin to assume that nothing is real, you can’t prove or disprove it. There is no proof or reason.

I don’t think it is logical or illogical. If there is nothing by which we can verify our senses, then ‘questioning’ is simply a floating or shifting standard by which to judge the truthfulness of our senses.

The idea of our senses lying to us (or believing that way) is what is unreasonable, not the results of it. Though some results are.

I do agree that it is illogical-- well, not illogical per se, but unreasonable-- to assume that nothing is correct, as well as the opposite.

You’re right, illogical was a bad choice of words.

The question then becomes, how can we possibly know what is correct and to what degree.

It essentially falls under the same principle I used earlier. When we question our senses and end up with only one reasonable cause, it becomes unreasonable to say it’s anything else. When we question our senses and end up with more than one reasonable cause, we consider all of them until one is proven unreasonable. There can be varying degrees or certainty, but to be reasonably sure you must be sure the other options are unreasonable.

even if some perceptions are true, we don’t know which ones are, so we can’t use the true perceptions as standards to judge our other perceptions.

We have no reason to assume any of our perceptions are false though. It would be unreasonable to assume any are. Of course, if we find evidence of our perceptions being wrong, then it does become reasonable to assume they’re wrong.

Well, I was viewing it more in the sense that your own self is all that can be verified. I do agree that it is a silly position to hold, but to say that ‘because it leads to solipsism,’ that it is wrong is merely an appeal to consequences, right?

In this case, the consequence is the same as original proposition. IE, when you’re saying that our senses might all be wrong, you are practicing solipsism. Saying that it leads to solipsism is an appeal to consequences though, it was a mistake on my part.

Nice catch, by the way.

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Either way, I’m here to debate about whether it is logical to believe in a god, not to debate about whether or not one exists.

Perhaps this is a matter of teminology. What do you mean by “a god”?

In the sense that Christians deny the existence of pagan gods, we are also atheists. I would agree it is not logical to believe in the heathen gods.

We define God as: omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will and in every perfection.

Is that the kind of God you say is not logical?

It seems logical to me for there to be such an infinite source providing our own instances of power, time, dimensions, intellect, will, and etc. Let me explain by way of analogy where people already accept such a thing.

Analogy of Numbers

Let us ask this question: is it logical that the set of Integers goes to infinity? Seems so to me. We can think of no highest number, yet we can make use of any conceivable number from that set, without worrying about it ever being exhausted. And we can still refer to the set as a single entity without having to be conscious of every single number. It is the source of all integers, so to speak, without beginning or end.

Similarly, God is a single entity yet able to provide any particular instance of an infinite number of possibilities. The source of all existence, immense. Able to distinguish individual elements, intelligent. Able to choose individual elements or subsets thereof, having will. Not lacking any element, perfect and complete. Spanning all that can be known in time and exceeding it, without beginning or end, eternal.

Such a similitude of God as the set of all possible particular instances of existence (natural, spiritual, conceptual, etc.) provides a perspective that might allow you to see the logic in believing in God as the source of all of them.

At a minimum, you could value such a God as the source of anything you choose to conceive, as being your Father in mind and will, giving you of His bounty in that regard.

But it can and should be taken further. For concepts are not the only things that exist. Atoms exist and combine according to observed “laws of nature”, which also exist, and make for a very interesting environment in which to live. Our will exists. This also takes its form from the infinite “set” of all possible instances of existence, and we share in the ability to see and choose from the huge storeroom of the “set of existences”. And even our personality is made from it.

It is totally logical to be grateful to the very God from which we take our existence. And we will find gratefulness also in existence. Of course, there are so many things, we may become confused as to what best to pick. Fortunately, there are laws we can choose from this set, including ones that command us to choose good and reject evil. But regardless of what we choose, the set contains it, or else we would not be able to do so. Yet our will is not able to arbitrarily choose anything. We are limited in our control of existence; we only share part of it, and are not God ourselves.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that all we could ever need is in this set, just as all numbers we need are in a number set. And this set is of existence, and is analogous to God: omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will and in every perfection. And yet, each element, though contained in God, is not itself God.

This is the extent we can know God by our reason, and it is logical, and it is based on what we can know and observe. But just as we can’t immediately know all the prime numbers in the set of Natural numbers, so we can’t immediately know everything in God. It would take eternity to do so, and even that would not likely suffice.

I hope this makes sense. And I thank God for allowing me to express this freely

hurst

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

sure. and that may or may not be a workable mathematical model. workable mathematical model. but it’s not science, unless you do science by fiat.

i am familiar with some of hawking’s work on the unboundedness of time, and i believe that we’ve discussed it on occasion - the problem with his his model is that it reifies imaginary time, which just makes no sense.

I won’t say that. Take complex exponential functions in wave equations for example. That is a mathematical model using imaginary numbers, and that works so well and so easy, that someone using trigonometric functions instead must be a fool or has too much time at hand.

basically, your responses - though doubtlessly interesting - are pure speculation, and speculation for which there is much less evidence than for the traditional, realist view. so why would anyone believe the former over the latter?

No one should. But it is worth to think about, perhaps at some near of far day it will lead to a new theory regarding the beginning of the universe.

i mean, the assumption is that the proposition “x began to exist at t” is true only if it something like “x exists at t, and there is some time prior to t at which x does not exist”.

Yes that makes sense. The term “the beginning of time” could be seen as a semantic antinomy I suppose, even perhaps as a category error…

 

[AnAtheist]

hurst:

Can you rephrase this a little better?

Yes, I’ll do that after I have dicussed the Webster’s definitions.5. Knowledge imparted or acquired, whether by study, research, or experience; general information.

That definition only applies for the English language, where you can use “intelligence” synonymous to “knowledge” or “gaining knowledge”. Military Intelligence comes into mind. We do not talk about that here, right?6. An intelligent being or spirit; – generally applied to pure spirits; as, a created intelligence.

That of course shows the Christian influence on the Webster’s authors.

I can live with the other definitions you mentioned, though I surely have a different opinion about what the term “soul” means.

Do you recognize yourself having an intellect as defined above?

Yes.

Now back to my rephrased argument, why the complexity argument is unsound:
The premise is: 1) A certain degree of complexity requires intelligence (you may replace this by intellect, that makes no difference for my argument) to design it, because 2) that complexity cannot be self-organised by less complex structures.
From the observation that DNA molecules have or exceed that degree, we can conclude that DNA must have been designed by some sort of intelligence.

We can also conclude, that the designing intelligence is more complex than the design. If it was less complex, than a more complex thing was created by a less complex thing, which violates 2). If a less complex intelligence can bring forth structures of higher complexity, there is no reason to assume, that those structures could not do that by themselves.

The intelligent designer therefore exceed the degree of complexity from 1) too, and thus it must be designed too. Which leads to an infinite regress.

You may now argue, that the intelligent designer, let’s call it God from now on, has a not just a superior intelligence in terms of quantity but also in terms of quality, thus the complexity argument does not count. Well, then it is not really intelligence any longer but something different, I call it “godilligence” for now. If God created the complex structures, they were not created by intelligence but by godilligence, which contradicts 1).

To call “godilligence” “intelligence” in order to keep the ID/complexity argument up is a perfect example for the equivocation fallacy.