What would you do if it were proven...?

[Candide_West]

Wow!! *That is brilliant! And so true

Really? You think that MoM2 should kill himself if he becomes convinced God doesn’t exist? That seems to raise worrying questions regarding how you perceive the value of life. Hopefully I am misunderstanding you here.*

Without God, the person is as much value as a cockroach.

This is based on the catholic desire to make value something that can only be measured in relation to God. Reality is somewhat different however, as I’m sure you’re aware. If not then presumably you don’t have a job (or at least not one that pays you with money) since that would be exchanging something with value (time in your life) for something worthless (money). Which would be silly. You presumably don’t have a car or a house either since clearly those things would be worthless and thus not worth either owning or looking after if you did…*

The truth is that people measure the value of things in relative terms every day. It is only Catholics who seem to claim “I measure the value of things relative to this thing I believe in - God, if you don’t share in my notion of God then you can’t value anything.” Neither part of which is actually true.*

Those who try to be “nice” and “moral” are actually being hypocritical since they are not living according to the conclusions of their conviction…

Benedictus, are you really saying that since we recognise that we have evolved, then it is hypocritical to live according to the moral system which evolved within us as social animals? This seems patently absurd.*

I think this is probably based on the catholic desire to say “I work out my morals relative to God, if you don’t believe in my notion of God, you cannot have morals”. Obviously this is silly, atheists generally have about the same morals as theists, they just determine them from first principles instead of “God said X”.

The question is more like, why don’t you kill all those who irk you considering that from the atheistic perspective they are as worthless as you.

Sigh, two fallacies in one sentence. Firstly as above atheists do not consider life to be worthless. As I’m sure you are well aware. Secondly, atheists have morals too, as I’m sure you are well aware. The real question is why you are trying to put across that you believe things which even a brief look out the window at the real world would show to be false.*

Actually, if atheists are sincere in their belief and the foundations of their belief, committing a crime would be par for the course

? Why? Is this back to the “you don’t believe in my God so you can’t have morals” fallacy? Frankly silly.*

Actually MindOvermatter actually has full grasp of the implications of your question and I haven’t read the rest but he simply took everything to its logical conclusion.

The logical conclusion that a change in beliefs should lead to suicide? This doesn’t seem like a logical or even sensible conclusion to me.*

If there is no God, there is no Love …

Only if you define love in relation to God. if you recognise that love is a natural part of existence as a human, then this becomes silly. Again this is from the catholic desire to make everything relative to their concept of God and pretend that therefore all human experience is out of reach unless you believe in the catholic notion of God. Obviously the fact that this is directly contrary to all human experience is irrelevant.*

… there is no goodness because God is the sum of all Goodness.

Again if you define Goodness from God then that makes sense. However, that reduces Good to a question of power and divorces it from true morality. This is Socrates old paradox, and he came to the opposite conclusion to you. That God must be conforming to some other standard of right and wrong as opposed to “might makes right”.

You are as worthless as the gnat and cockroach and nothing really has value, only the value each person attaches to a thing.

Back to the fallacy of “if you value things differently to me then you can’t value them at all”. This time with added emotive language for emphasis. Still doesn’t make sense though.*

What I would suggest is to think about the foundation of your belief - you came from nothing you return to nothing. Your value is the same as the dung beetle. .

And the same again.*

Morality is the dictate of the strong. *Since the paedophile is bigger and stronger than his victim, then his actions are good. *Everyone’s “truth” depend on their own perspective so the might and powerful get to impose their truth on the weak.

Oddly here you have taken the perspective you have implied for yourself in another post “God defines morality, because what he says goes”. Then made it a bad thing and claimed that atheists think this.*

As I’ve already said, atheists don’t have the option of saying “God said X” to define morality, so we must work them out from first principles. And I’ve never encountered an atheist saying “might makes right” because I don’t think such a thing is justifiable from first principles. However, I have encountered theists saying this. But only where the “might” in question is their Gods.*

As I said in an earlier post, this is as moral as anything: snap your boots, raise your hand in a straight salute and declare: *Heil *Hitler!

Silly. Again based on the fallacy regarding morality only being possible if it’s your morality from the source you define morality from. Obviously, as I’m sure you’re aware, this is not true.*

 

[benedictus2]

Really? You think that MoM2 should kill himself if he becomes convinced God doesn’t exist? That seems to raise worrying questions regarding how you perceive the value of life. Hopefully I am misunderstanding you here.*

If there is no God and we are just by products of accidental mergings and mutations, why should life have value? We kill cows and eat them don’t we?

 

[tonyrey]

Obviously this is silly, atheists generally have about the same morals as theists, they just determine them from first principles instead of “God said X”.

What are those first principles? In reality atheists accept the civilised values of humanity which have their origin in the belief that we owe our existence to a Creator.

Again if you define Goodness from God then that makes sense. However, that reduces Good to a question of power and divorces it from true morality. This is Socrates old paradox, and he came to the opposite conclusion to you. That God must be conforming to some other standard of right and wrong as opposed to “might makes right”.

God does not conform to anything. God is creative Love…

 

[benedictus2]

This is based on the catholic desire to make value something that can only be measured in relation to God.

Nope. Based on reality. And based on extending the very basic premises of atheism to its conclusions.

Reality is somewhat different however, as I’m sure you’re aware. If not then presumably you don’t have a job (or at least not one that pays you with money) since that would be exchanging something with value (time in your life) for something worthless (money). Which would be silly. You presumably don’t have a car or a house either since clearly those things would be worthless and thus not worth either owning or looking after if you did…*

But that is exactly the point, value then becomes subjective. Your life really has no objective value. You only think it has, but really it doesn’t. You are as important as the gnat and as the soil. You are human - from humus - soil. You are nothing but.

Benedictus, are you really saying that since we recognise that we have evolved, then it is hypocritical to live according to the moral system which evolved within us as social animals? This seems patently absurd.*

No very rational. Why have morality. If we are nothing but soil that by accident breathed and thought, why should there be morality?

 

[Candide_West]

Suppose you’re in an empty 6ft x 6ft room.*The area in which the pen could land is 36ft.*How does that classify as an infinite possibility.
**
No, the odds are not inconceivably huge because it is a tiny room.

If your pen is a certain size, you can calculate the probability and it would be rather small I think. Definitely not infinite.

I think this comes from your misunderstanding of how life in an analogue world works.*

How many positions do you think a pen could conceivably land in on a given 36 ft sq area? Let’s take where it did land an refer to each one of the possible degrees of rotation on that point. That’s 360. Now each one of those degrees can be divided down into billionths, trillionths, googgleths of a degree… In fact if you are being exact there are an infinite number of rotational positions possible about that centre point. Now, we can move the centre a relatively large distance (say a nanometer) to the right and again we have an infinitive number of available rotational positions. Of course there are also an infinite number of other lateral positions we have skipped over in moving a whole nanometer in one hop…

So yes, there are an infinite number of positions the pen could land in the room.

If not guided highly unlikely at least based on the age of the the universe.

Equally the odds of the pen landing exactly there by chance given the age of the universe are essentially nil.*

At the age we put the universe in, I think it has been calculated that we are unlikely to have passed the bacteria stage.

This would make an interesting read as a reference. Could you cite one please? I’ve heard claims like this before, they are usually based on a highly flawed understanding of evolution which is, to say the least, not uncommon amongst theists.*

Incidentally, you do understand that there is no such thing as “guided” evolution right? If evolution is guided then it’s not evolution, it’s selective breeding.*

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus, are you really saying that since we recognise that we have evolved, then it is hypocritical to live according to the moral system which evolved within us as social animals? This seems patently absurd.*

Not absurd at all. Right on the money. If it is true that all we are , are chance by products of randomly colliding atoms, why would there by a moral system at all. How do you derive morality from indeterminate matter?

Yes, you are being a hypocrite for living according to a moral standard because if you truly believe what you believe about the origin of man, there is no such thing as morality. The only thing that rules is survival of the fittest. Might makes right. Very Darwinian if I may so.

I think this is probably based on the catholic desire to say “I work out my morals relative to God, if you don’t believe in my notion of God, you cannot have morals”. Obviously this is silly, atheists generally have about the same morals as theists, they just determine them from first principles instead of “God said X”.

And that is just the point. Where are you basing your morals? Why do you have morals? Essentially, from the atheistic point of view you are just a more intelligent version of the rat. Rats have no morals as far as I know.
If evolution is true, then all who are weak should be killed. Survival of the fittest you know.

If evolution is true, dropping bombs in the starving African countries, is par for the course.

Sigh, two fallacies in one sentence. Firstly as above atheists do not consider life to be worthless. As I’m sure you are well aware.

You see fallacies where there is none because you are not paying attention. Where did I say that atheists consider life to be worthless?
I said “from the atheistic perspective” The atheistic perspective is that there is no God and we came from nothing.

Secondly, atheists have morals too, as I’m sure you are well aware.

And as I have said above, yes some of them are - in total contradiction with the foundation of their belief.

The real question is why you are trying to put across that you believe things which even a brief look out the window at the real world would show to be false.*

The real question is why you should think a Supernatural being is verifiable by looking at a window. (Although yes, I do see Him when I look out the window). The eyes for seeing God is a pure heart.

Why? Is this back to the “you don’t believe in my God so you can’t have morals” fallacy? Frankly silly.*

Far from silly. It’s right on the money, you’re just not reading my post correctly. I did not say that “because you do not believe in God you cannot have morals”. Of course you can have morals, but having those morals is contrary to the foundation of your belief. So yes, hypocritical, but one where I’d thanks for being one.

If you are moral, you are moral in spite of your atheistic belief and not because of it.

The logical conclusion that a change in beliefs should lead to suicide? This doesn’t seem like a logical or even sensible conclusion to me.*

No, not that a change in belief should lead to suicide. You’ve got to read my posts better (then I again I probably should explain myself better instead of taxing your grey cells). This is not just a case of changing belief. You asked “if a believer is convinced that there is no God.” Well if a person believes there is no God, then for that person that is truth and every ugly thing that follows from it is truth.

 

[benedictus2]

Only if you define love in relation to God. if you recognise that love is a natural part of existence as a human,

Why? Why is it a natural part of existence of “a piece of breathing mud”? There is nothing natural about love at all if all we are is a walking, talking, breathing soil.
Can we say that plants love? Or animals? Or stones?

then this becomes silly.

Only because you are unable to connect the dots between the foundations of your beliefs and their logical conclusions.

Again this is from the catholic desire to make everything relative to their concept of God and pretend that therefore all human experience is out of reach unless you believe in the catholic notion of God. Obviously the fact that this is directly contrary to all human experience is irrelevant.*

But there again is the question: Why is it that humans experience love? I mean why would we experience love considering we are nothing more than “breathing dirt” as far as atheistic principles of origins is concerned.

I watched Dawkins once and he sounded so ridiculous and idiotic I could not help laughing.

He was standing by a mountain and he said something like “ we cannot help but be grateful”( meaning gratitude for existence and for the beauty of nature).

Grateful to whom? To the nothing from which we came?

Again if you define Goodness from God then that makes sense. However, that reduces Good to a question of power and divorces it from true morality.

Huh? How do you come to that conclusion? How is the fact that God is the sum of all goodness make gooness a question of power and divorces it from true morality. That is totally nonsensical.

This is Socrates old paradox, and he came to the opposite conclusion to you. That God must be conforming to some other standard of right and wrong as opposed to “might makes right”.

If you are talking about Euthypro, not quite.
In that dilemma Socratest speaks of gods.But what if one god said an act is good and another god said no? Where’s the moral standard then.
Also, how does this reduce morality to “might makes right” if morality is based on the fact that God is the sum of all goodness.

“Might makes right” is the morality of the atheist if they really think about where their atheistic premises lead. But they don’t want to. It might shatter the rose tinted glass.

Back to the fallacy of “if you value things differently to me then you can’t value them at all”. This time with added emotive language for emphasis. Still doesn’t make sense though.*

Know what, if you will read my post better, I will not be spending spending half the time explaining them.
Did I say “if you value things differently to me then you can’t value them at all?”
Yes, you can value them but that value is subjective and has no grounding except the self.

If a person should decide that human life is worthless, then it is worthless. If another decides that it has worth, then it has worth. But which is it really. Does human life have worth or not?

And the same again.*

And the same TRUTH again.

Oddly here you have taken the perspective you have implied for yourself in another post “God defines morality, because what he says goes”.

If God exists, he has the right to define morality especially if He is what we claim He is – the Sum of all Goodness.
Can we say that of every atheistic Tom, Dirk and Harry.

Then made it a bad thing and claimed that atheists think this.*

Not quite the same. So yes, it is a bad thing and the atheist thinks like this. You are just unable to follow the reasoning.

As I’ve already said, atheists don’t have the option of saying “God said X” to define morality, so we must work them out from first principles.

And what first principles would they be?

And I’ve never encountered an atheist saying “might makes right”

Because they have not thought about it. But I do suggest you do.
Just because no atheist has said so does not mean that this follows perfectly from atheistic premises.

because I don’t think such a thing is justifiable from first principles.

What first principles would that be? You’ve said that twice now but have not elucidated on what exactly they are.Tonyrey asked the same thing.

However, I have encountered theists saying this. But only where the “might” in question is their Gods.*

Only because you did not understand. I’ve explained it above.

Silly. Again based on the fallacy regarding morality only being possible if it’s your morality from the source you define morality from. Obviously, as I’m sure you’re aware, this is not true.*

Nope, just plain logical, based on the atheistic premises and follows perfectly from them. You just haven’t thought it out.

 

[benedictus2]

I think this comes from your misunderstanding of how life in an analogue world works.*

How many positions do you think a pen could conceivably land in on a given 36 ft sq area? Let’s take where it did land an refer to each one of the possible degrees of rotation on that point. That’s 360. Now each one of those degrees can be divided down into billionths, trillionths, googgleths of a degree… In fact if you are being exact there are an infinite number of rotational positions possible about that centre point. Now, we can move the centre a relatively large distance (say a nanometer) to the right and again we have an infinitive number of available rotational positions. Of course there are also an infinite number of other lateral positions we have skipped over in moving a whole nanometer in one hop…

So yes, there are an infinite number of positions the pen could land in the room.

Incredibly huge perhaps but not infinite.

Now lets compare the probabilities if you were to throw that pen in a cubicle 1ft by 1ft in the centre of the room. Would you say that that would greatly increase the odds of the pen landing in the centre of the room?

The difference in odds between the 1ft square and the 6ft square room could not even compare with the odds that you are trying to propose for evolution.

What would approximate is throwing a deck of cards in a hurricane and these coming down perfectly to form a card house.

Equally the odds of the pen landing exactly there by chance given the age of the universe are essentially nil.*

Huh? You’re not making sense here or I am being incredibly stupid (and yes you can say probably the latter)

This would make an interesting read as a reference. Could you cite one please? I’ve heard claims like this before, they are usually based on a highly flawed understanding of evolution which is, to say the least, not uncommon amongst theists.*

Try to get hold of Answering Atheism by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker.

Incidentally, you do understand that there is no such thing as “guided” evolution right? If evolution is guided then it’s not evolution, it’s selective breeding.*

And finally we agree!

That has been my contention ever since when I here Catholics say they believe in theistic evolution. There is no such thing. Once you factor in God, it ceases to be evolution, it becomes creation by design.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That has been my contention ever since when I here Catholics say they believe in theistic evolution. There is no such thing. Once you factor in God, it ceases to be evolution, it becomes creation by design.

I have enjoyed your round for round battle against the fallacy of moral atheism, and i can only raise a glass to he who defends his brothers conner. But to your idea of evolution i can raise only an eyebrow and a frown.

Evolution is guided only in the sense that there is evidently transcendent objective teleological meaning in nature, for which only an intelligent first cause can give resolve. If there is meaning in nature then the natural world will tend toward meaningful ends because physical forms themselves have meaning and therefore events cannot be completely random. Hence the predictability that scientists often talk about and rely upon in-order to form coherent theories. However evolution is also a natural process in that it evidently expresses itself through secondary causes that are not in and of themselves “intelligent”. Thus in that context (in the context of an inductive science which by its very nature of being inductive prides itself with the study of secondary causes), it is proper and correct to say that secondary causes are not moved by an immediate and direct intelligence and thus are unguided and without purpose, if by purpose we mean for example the kind of purpose implied when a human being is moving pawns on the chess board into predetermined positions. In that scenario there would be no secondary causes and God would be directly responsible for every murder, rape, and child molestation in human history. Obviously we as Christians cannot believe in that kind of determinism or purpose.

This of course does not overrule the possibility that there is an intelligent first cause that created the teleological meaning we find in nature. This is what a Christian should mean when they say there is purpose in nature and that it is guided.

What i am trying to say here is that it needn’t be either or. You can believe in evolution as a natural process, and you can also believe that this natural process exists to fulfill a meaningful purpose. The two are not necessarily contradictory.

 

[samiam1611]

So basically, what you are saying is that you will doubt it because you have decided that you will doubt it.

Hm? I haven’t “decided” that I will doubt it. It’s hard for me to imagine believing in God, as I’m sure it’s hard for you to imagine not believing in God. It’s a little easier to imagine being an agnostic theist than a straight up theist.

Suppose though that you are convinced not through a scientific method. We cannot use the scientific method to prove God because being supernatural He is obviously beyond the purview of science. The most that science can do is give hints.

Yes I understand that.

Suppose that you are convinced that God exists in the same manner that you are convinced that the sun exists, except that you know that not empirically but with a clear conviction within you, an experience that you just know?

What will you do?

I sort of answered this much earlier in the thread. (I did not specify the manner that I would need to be convinced.) I said something along the lines of I would want to know more about this God. I would want to know is He exactly like the Abrahamic God? Is He actually omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc? Or is He like the deistic view of God? Is it one God or many Gods? Is He benevolent or evil?

Basically, I would not do anything much different with my life except that I would pray that He (if it is a He) show me what He wants from me. (Do I need to worship Him and what does that entail?)

If He did not answer, I would probably not really do anything different. I would be willing to still pray though, to be on the safe side, just in case He was busy that first time I prayed and didn’t hear me

 

[Candide_West]

If there is no God and we are just by products of accidental mergings and mutations, why should life have value? We kill cows and eat them don’t we?

We aren’t “accidental” we are evolved, and all the more amazing for that. Why do you think it makes something worthless if it wasn’t designed by someone?

Value is in relation to someone valuing something. If someone values something, then it is valued by that person. If someone doesn’t value something then it has no value to that person. It is by it’s very nature subjective.*

Nope. Based on reality. And based on extending the very basic premises of atheism to its conclusions.

Very well then, please demonstrate what basic principles you are extending and we can see if they are actually “atheist premises” and if you are extending them in a way which makes sense.*

To date I’ve heard this argument many many times, but never yet a decent supporting argument. So I look forwards to your (name removed by moderator)ut.*

But that is exactly the point, value then becomes subjective. Your life really has no objective value.*

Yes, value is subjective. And “objective value” is a non-meaningful phrase. I agree with you here. This is easily demonstrated as well by simply looking around, people value things in all kinds of different ways. And the same thing will often be valued by different people to different value.*

*You only think it has, but really it doesn’t. You are as important as the gnat and as the soil. You are human - from humus - soil. You are nothing but.

To who? Or what? I doubt gnats have a concept of value in order to carry out such comparisons. Equally I suspect asking inanimate objects about value is unlikely to get you very far. If you ask the people who know me they’ll probably value me rather more highly. Obviously I value my own life more highly than that of a gnat. I suspect you do the same. This is hardly surprising.*

What point are you trying to make here? That soil doesn’t value my life? That a gnat doesn’t either? So what?*

No very rational. Why have morality. If we are nothing but soil that by accident breathed and thought, why should there be morality?

Er, if we were nothing but soil then we wouldn’t have morals, that seems obvious, but then again if we were nothing but soil then morality would be irrelevant. Obviously since we are not soil but evolved social animals then it isn’t surprising that we have evolved morality as well.

Again, not sure I get your point.*

Incidentally it would make it much easier to reply if you could write single replies to single posts, replying to 5 different posts is something of a pain.*

 

[Candide_West]

What are those first principles? In reality atheists accept the civilised values of humanity which have their origin in the belief that we owe our existence to a Creator.

Hey Tonyrey, good to hear from you again. Curious though why you’re asking again a question I have already answered for you, earlier on this very thread I think.

Atheists work out morality from first principles, things like “suffering is bad” which is based on the definition of the word suffering. This seems both simple and straightforward.*

Of course I would say that in reality religions took the morals that we evolved as social animals and claimed they come from God.*

God does not conform to anything. God is creative Love…

So you also follow the “might makes right” route. Interesting.*

 

[Candide_West]

Not absurd at all. Right on the money. * If it is true that all we are , are chance by products of randomly colliding atoms, why would there by a moral system at all. *How do you derive morality from indeterminate matter?

I don’t, I derive morality from first principles. As I’ve stated.*

We are not the product of randomly colliding particles, we are a product of evolution. And because we evolved as social animals, we have morals. This doesn’t seem surprising.*

Yes, you are being a hypocrite for living according to a moral standard because if you truly believe what you believe about the origin of man, there is no such thing as morality. *The only thing that rules is survival of the fittest. Might makes right. Very Darwinian if I may so.

Er, no I don’t agree, if you really think this then by all means demonstrate how you work this out. Then we can discuss.*

And that is just the point. Where are you basing your morals? Why do you have morals? Essentially, from the atheistic point of view you are just a more intelligent version of the rat. *Rats have no morals as far as I know.

Why all the emotive selection of animals, no we are not just more intelligent versions of rats. We are hugely different to rats. We are much more closely related to chimps for example, who are another social animal and they do indeed have morals, although obviously very much more simplistic than ours. Because we are accordingly much more advanced in evolutionary terms and especially in social terms.

If evolution is true, then all who are weak should be killed. *Survival of the fittest you know.

Really? Why? How do you justify this idea?*

If evolution is true, dropping bombs in the starving African countries, is par for the course.

Really? Why? How do you justify these actions?*

You see fallacies where there is none because you are not paying attention. Where did I say that atheists consider life to be worthless?

*I said “from the atheistic perspective” *The atheistic perspective is that there is no God and we came from nothing.

Er, ok good so you aren’t saying that atheists consider life to be valueless. Glad we can put that aside.

Incidentally it isn’t an atheist belief that we came from nothing. Obviously that would be a bit silly. Only theists think that there was nothing, them kebam there were humans. Atheists generally think humans evolved. Same for other animals.

And as I have said above, yes some of them are - in total contradiction with the foundation of their belief.

What foundation of belief?*

The real question is why you should think a Supernatural being is verifiable by looking at a window.

Er, I didn’t, I said you could confirm that the things you were saying were wrong by looking out the window.*

Far from silly. It’s right on the money, you’re just not reading my post correctly. *I did not say that “because you do not believe in God you cannot have morals”. Of course you can have morals, but having those morals is contrary to the foundation of your belief. So yes, hypocritical, but one where I’d thanks for being one.

By all means, demonstrate that it is hypocritical if you believe it to be so.*

If you are moral, you are moral in spite of your atheistic belief and not because of it.

Or, more accurately, my morals have nothing to do with my religious views whatsoever. My morals are as I’ve described worked out from first principles. Although I guess my lack of religion does leave me free to do that which most theists have their morals defined externally for them. So I guess it is more that being an atheist leave me free to work out my morals rather than anything else.*

No, not that a change in belief should lead to suicide. *You’ve got to read my posts better (then I again I probably should explain myself better instead of taxing your grey cells). This is not just a case of changing belief. You asked “if a believer is convinced that there is no God.” *Well if a person believes there is no God, then for that person that is truth and every ugly thing that follows from it is truth.

Right, so you aren’t saying that you’re happy with a persons beliefs changing leading to suicide. But you do approve of MoM2’s post where he/she says that changing his/her beliefs would lead him/her to commit suicide? Seems odd.*

Why? Why is it a natural part of existence of “a piece of breathing mud”? *There is nothing natural about love at all if all we are is a walking, talking, breathing soil.

Er, don’t know about you, but I’m not made of mud. You seem to make some really odd statements sometimes. Not sure if they’re intended as jokes. Maybe I just don’t get your sense of humour.*

Human emotions are however, exactly the kind of thing we would expect to develop in social animals and become much more complex once self awareness is achieved. As indeed they have.*

Can we say that plants love? Or animals? Or stones?

Indeed not, because love is a human emotion. It’s part of our evolution, equally humans don’t echolocate, but some animals do. Because that’s how they evolved.*

 

[Candide_West]

Only because you are unable to connect the dots between the foundations of your beliefs and their logical conclusions.

Again, please provide the foundations you are referring to and the logic leading to your conclusions.*

Incidentally, again it would help make this a lot more straightforward if you allow me to reply to one post rather than writing another and another. It would avoid me needing to reply to the same statement in the same way repeatedly. I know I’m multiple replying here, I’m kinda forced to in response.*

But there again is the question: Why is it that humans experience love? I mean why would we experience love considering we are nothing more than “breathing dirt” as far as atheistic principles of origins is concerned.

Once more, we are not “breathing dirt”, where do you even get these notions from. Who ever said we are breathing dirt? Has someone said this and given you the impression atheists think this? I’ve heard crazier statements about atheists, but not by much.*

I watched Dawkins once…

Well done, that’s more than I’ve done. Seems to be Catholics bring up Dawkins regularly. Do you guys think that we are all Dawkins in disguise? Or that atheists follow his every word? We don’t. He’s a good scientist, but I really don’t care what he has to say about religion. *

Huh? *How do you come to that conclusion? How is the fact that God is the sum of all goodness make gooness a question of power and divorces it from true morality. That is totally nonsensical.

Why? If you define goodness by what God says, then by definition you can hold God to no standard. If God commanded you tomorrow to torture someone to death, that would be good, because that is what God has said. Thus God has the power to define what is good or bad as he pleases. As I said, it reduces good and bad to a matter of power.*

If you are talking about Euthypro, *not quite.

In that dilemma Socratest speaks of gods.But what if one god said an act is good and another god said no? Where’s the moral standard then.

Yes indeed, Euthyphro. Often now stated as “Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”.*

The former requires that God is held to a standard beyond himself. The latter reduces to “might makes right”.

“Might makes right” is the morality of the atheist if they really think about where their atheistic premises lead. But they don’t want to. It might shatter the rose tinted glass.

Nope, indeed not. Morality from first principles never seems to lead to “might makes right”. Although obviously theists have often managed to reach this conclusion. As I’m sure you are well aware.*

Did I say “if you value things differently to me then you can’t value them at all?”

You said “why not kill those that irk you since from your atheist perspective they are as worthless as yourself…” obviously that is a ridiculous joke of my position but essentially you are saying that I have no basis to value anything because I’m an atheist. Or to put it another way value must be defined against God.*

Yes, you can value them but that value is subjective and has no grounding except the self.

Yes, value is subjective. It is by it’s very nature a subjective measure.*

If a *person should decide that human life is worthless, then it is worthless. If another decides that it has worth, then it has worth. *But which is it really. Does human life have worth or not?

General case for ease of your understanding - If someone values something, that thing has value to that person. If someone doesn’t value something then it has no value to that person.*

Virtually everyone agrees that human life has value. Those who don’t we generally consider to have mental issues. Since clearly their minds work contrary to the way that they have evolved to function with our arrangement as social creatures.*

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… How do you derive morality from indeterminate matter?..

Every Christian moral except the sexual ones are completely acceptable…common sense says that these conversations are never really about the logic.

 

[benedictus2]

Just a quick lunchtime post.

We aren’t “accidental” we are evolved, and all the more amazing for that.

Evolved purely by accident and I suppose one may call that amazing but it does not give it any worth.

Why do you think it makes something worthless if it wasn’t designed by someone?

We kill ants and cockroaches don’ we? Why would the fact that we have more intelligence make our lives any less worthless than theirs?

Value is in relation to someone valuing something. If someone values something, then it is valued by that person. If someone doesn’t value something then it has no value to that person. It is by it’s very nature subjective.*

Exactly my point. So therefore, if someone says that human life has no value, and another says human life has value, does it really have value or not?

Very well then, please demonstrate what basic principles you are extending and we can see if they are actually “atheist premises” and if you are extending them in a way which makes sense.*

We came from nothing (which basically is illogical in itself because nothing comes from nothing) which is why Dawkins was willing to grant possible Aliens. How these aliens materialized he does not say, but if they did have always existed, then really, these aliens of his are gods.

 

[Candide_West]

If God exists, he has the right to define morality especially if He is what we claim He is – the Sum of all Goodness.

Right, you’ve given this view before. “might makes right”. Fair enough if that’s what you believe. I don’t agree obviously, but that seems to be your view. The odd thing is you don’t seem to want to admit that this is your view, even when you keep saying it is.

Not quite the same. So yes, it is a bad thing and the atheist thinks like this.*

No they don’t, this is again quite evident from a brief look out the window. Please give it a go.*

Because to date you haven’t given any reasoning to follow, please do so and I’ll endeavour to follow and identify errors where I find them.*

And what first principles would they be?

First principles such as “suffering is bad”. Easy enough.

Because they have not thought about it. But I do suggest you do.

That seems to be rather an arrogant thing to say. How do you know what other people have thought about or not?

Just because no atheist has said so does not mean that this follows perfectly from atheistic premises.

No, but you’ll need to provide the “atheistic premises” and show what follows. I look forward to reading this.*

What first principles would that be? You’ve said that twice now but have not elucidated on what exactly they are.

Tonyrey asked the same thing.

And I’ve answered you and tonyrey too. Even though I’ve already explained it to him.*

Nope, just plain logical, based on the atheistic premises and follows perfectly from them. You just haven’t thought it out.

Again, what “atheistic premises”? How does it follow.*

Incredibly huge perhaps but not infinite.

Now lets compare the probabilities if you were to throw that pen in a cubicle 1ft by 1ft in the centre of the room. *Would you say that that would greatly increase the odds of the pen landing in the centre of the room?

The difference in odds between the 1ft square and the 6ft square room could not even compare with the odds that you are trying to propose for evolution…

Huh? You’re not making sense here or I am being incredibly stupid (and yes you can say probably the latter)

Ahh, don’t worry about it, this isn’t straightforward. The key to it is what the smallest measurement that could possible be made is? A nanometer? A picometer? A billionth of a picometer? Whatever size of measurement you pick, you can always just split it into parts. So you end up inevitably going to infinitesimals. So yes, in a 1 ft by 1 ft sq there are also an infinite number of possible positions. There are an infinite number of points along a 1mm line too. That is the nature of analogue measurement.*

So yes, the odds are 1 / infinity that it should have landed exactly there.*

And finally we agree!

That has been my contention ever since when I here Catholics say they believe in theistic evolution. There is no such thing. Once you factor in God, it ceases to be evolution, it becomes creation by design.

Agreed, here I must admit to being impressed. This is something I’ve had to go over at great length with theists in the past. And often still not got anywhere.*

 

[benedictus2]

Right, you’ve given this view before. “might makes right”. Fair enough if that’s what you believe. I don’t agree obviously, but that seems to be your view. The odd thing is you don’t seem to want to admit that this is your view, even when you keep saying it is.

Are you feigning obtuseness or being so?

“Might is right” the sole domain of atheism. And yes, I know you wish it were not so that is why you are trying to pass this on to theism.

No they don’t, this is again quite evident from a brief look out the window. Please give it a go.*

Ah yes, atheists have this incapacity to comprehend that one obviously cannot observe the supernatural in quite the same way that one can eyeball the natural.

Because to date you haven’t given any reasoning to follow, please do so and I’ll endeavour to follow and identify errors where I find them.*

No you’re just not able to. Give it a try.

First principles such as “suffering is bad”. Easy enough.

If “your suffering” will lead to my “not suffering”, is suffering bad?

After all, as you said before it is all subjective.

And another, If someone’s pain gives another pleasure, is suffering bad?

That seems to be rather an arrogant thing to say. How do you know what other people have thought about or not?

It’s evident in their posts. That you keep asking me the same thing shows that.

No, but you’ll need to provide the “atheistic premises” and show what follows. I look forward to reading this.*

I think I gave that earlier. Atheists believe there is no God therefore we came from nothing. How they can come up with that and not see how illogical it is is beyond me though.

But then as Bentley has commented of Dawkins - "despite his embarrassing incapacity for philosophical reasoning - never fails to entrance his eager readers with his rhetorical recklessness.

And I’ve answered you and tonyrey too. Even though I’ve already explained it to him.*

And I’ve questioned your answer.

Again, what “atheistic premises”? How does it follow.*

I’ve explained that above.

Ahh, don’t worry about it, this isn’t straightforward. The key to it is what the smallest measurement that could possible be made is? A nanometer? A picometer? A billionth of a picometer? Whatever size of measurement you pick, you can always just split it into parts. So you end up inevitably going to infinitesimals. So yes, in a 1 ft by 1 ft sq there are also an infinite number of possible positions. There are an infinite number of points along a 1mm line too. That is the nature of analogue measurement.*

So yes, the odds are 1 / infinity that it should have landed exactly there.*

Regardless, if you throw your pen in an open field in a tornado, the chances of it landing in your room is… ?

But then I suppose you would reason that they are both infinite so there is no difference? Except or course that clear thinking folk would see that it aint quite so.

Agreed, here I must admit to being impressed. This is something I’ve had to go over at great length with theists in the past. And often still not got anywhere.*

Me too. I have tried to come with as adequate an analogy to make my point.

 

[benedictus2]

Er, if we were nothing but soil then we wouldn’t have morals, that seems obvious, but then again if we were nothing but soil then morality would be irrelevant.

Finally! It sinks in.

Yes, if we are nothing but soil then we wouldn’t have morals. There is no basis for morality. And if we are chance by products of colliding atoms that happened to mutate for no reason, then we are just talking, breathing, soil hence really there is no reason for morals.

CS Lewis once said that one’s good nature at a given point can be put down to the bacon and eggs one had for breakfast.

Obviously since we are not soil but evolved social animals then it isn’t surprising that we have evolved morality as well.

According to atheistic principles, evolved soil. Same as the animals.

 

[benedictus2]

I have enjoyed your round for round battle against the fallacy of moral atheism, and i can only raise a glass to he who defends his brothers conner. But to your idea of evolution i can raise only an eyebrow and a frown.

Evolution is guided only in the sense that there is evidently transcendent objective teleological meaning in nature, for which only an intelligent first cause can give resolve. If there is meaning in nature then the natural world will tend toward meaningful ends because physical forms themselves have meaning and therefore events cannot be completely random. Hence the predictability that scientists often talk about and rely upon in-order to form coherent theories. However evolution is also a natural process in that it evidently expresses itself through secondary causes that are not in and of themselves “intelligent”. Thus in that context (in the context of an inductive science which by its very nature of being inductive prides itself with the study of secondary causes), it is proper and correct to say that secondary causes are not moved by an immediate and direct intelligence and thus are unguided and without purpose, if by purpose we mean for example the kind of purpose implied when a human being is moving pawns on the chess board into predetermined positions. In that scenario there would be no secondary causes and God would be directly responsible for every murder, rape, and child molestation in human history. Obviously we as Christians cannot believe in that kind of determinism or purpose.

This of course does not overrule the possibility that there is an intelligent first cause that created the teleological meaning we find in nature. This is what a Christian should mean when they say there is purpose in nature and that it is guided.

What i am trying to say here is that it needn’t be either or. You can believe in evolution as a natural process, and you can also believe that this natural process exists to fulfill a meaningful purpose. The two are not necessarily contradictory.

That there is an Intelligent First Cause nullifies evolution which is all supposed to have happened at random by accident.

If it is not by accident, then it cannot be evolution.

It becomes evolution only from our vantage point. But from God’s point it is not.

Suppose an invisible someone were to place a blob of clay on your desk. Over weeks, months, and years, he slowly adjusts, splits, forms and adds to this clay. From your vantage point you see this thing “evolving”. It seems as if it is subdividing, changing, growing all by itself for no reason.

But from this invisible someone’s viewpoint, nothing is evolving. He is doing it all painstakingly.

Now God may have factored and made inherent some capacities and capabilities in nature. That still does not mean evolution.

The problem with evolution is not as you phrase is - it’s concern with second causes - but that there is no other cause except this second causes and these second causes are so random there was no design to it at all.

Once we say that God has built into nature the teleological meaning, then it is design and not evolution.

I think of the incredible precision that we now know of the Big Bang. If such fine tuned precision accompanied the big bang, then why would we think that the “evolution” that followed is random and accidental?

Also, God being responsible for every murder, rape and mayhem does not follow from the above because part of that design is to give man free will.