Why are WE here?

[wanstronian]

Individuals find individual value in things, yes, but my whole point is that if God doesn’t exist, all “purpose” is left up to the individual.

Yes, that’s right.

That means we all make up our own moral codes that fit ourselves because we would be the arbiters of what we interpret as “truth”. So if I really wanted to, because there would be no “Ultimate Truth” I could go around doing whatever the heck I want for the fact that nothing has a higher goal than what I or the rest of humanity can come up with.

Well, you’re being slightly ambiguous there. First you say that we all make up our own moral codes, which implies that we do that as individuals. This is what I was referring to when I said, ‘The two options aren’t “what God says”, and “what I, the individual, happen to fancy doing.”’ It’s not either the individual or God. I’ll address your specific objection to that comment later, but for now it’s enough to point out that you still seem to believe that secular morality translates as individual selfishness. However, to your credit you do at least go on to acknowledge that society has a role to play.

Without an ultimate arbiter that holds all beliefs together, humanity has no real purpose but that which it defines.

Yes, as you said before.

If God doesn’t exist, there is no relevant force that dictates whether or not murder is wrong [which God has, btw, if you’ve heard of the Ten Commandments] - thus theoretically, as I have stated, murder [regardless of its reason] is not objectively evil if there is no God.

Well now you’re applying specificity to a more general argument. We were discussing “unnecessary damage,” upon which God has not, as far as I’m aware, spoken. And yet, if the OT is to be believed, then “unnecessary damage” undoubtedly occurred, sanctioned by God.

Regarding “objectively,” it depends on your definition. If you take “objectively” to mean that overwhelming consensus of opinion, then fine. If you take it to mean “universally true no matter what” (ie. absolutism) then you have a real problem. Either you have to define what makes it so, and explain why, in the case of morality (which is what we’re discussing here, when you get down to it), it has so clearly changed even in the few thousand years or so since the God hypothesis has existed; or you have to define it in terms of “what God says,” which is just begging the question.

So what, are you suggesting objective truth is decided by majority-vote or something?

I don’t think it’s quite as simplistic as that, but you’re not far off. Although I hesitate to apply the word “truth” to anything other than in a colloquial sense.

Or randomness?

Perhaps, at a basic level - given that we are the end result of chance occurrences, then our concepts of truth, morality, love etc. are also the end result of chance occurrences. However, I should point out that I’m not talking about the “Boeing 747” version of “chance.”

Or even something that we don’t know or haven’t defined? Because this makes as much sense to me as it seems my post makes sense to you…

Hopefully I’ve clarified.

No offense, but your viewpoint is just as heinous, if not more - you appear to be looking at the issue of God ordering the death of people from some sort of secular…ish point of view, but it can only make sense if you look at it through the eyes of a Jew or Christian - which, by the way, is only commonsensical when having a debate with a Jew or Christian, if I may say so. As in, it can’t make sense if you don’t see or at least theoretically interpret God as the ultimate arbiter in the scenario…

Yes, I’m looking at it from a secular point of view - that’s the only way one can be objective about it. As I said (or implied), “God told me to do it” is not a reasonable defence (although I note you disagree - more on that later). Was Ronald E. Gay justified in murdering seven people? Were Matthew and Tyler Williams acting on God’s word? What about Blair Donnelly? And so on, and so on… Were any of these people acquitted because God told them to? No. But how do we know that God didn’t tell them to kill?
This is why courts of law are secular in nature (apart from the outmoded habit of making people swear on a book). Because “God told me to” is NOT a good defence, even if it might seem like it to the person wielding the sword. If you can’t prove that God exists, you can’t use him as an excuse to commit immoral acts.

Yes it is, if God exists and if God did truly tell someone to do it.

And that’s my point - IF. Which can never be proven, so it’s not a reasonable defence.

[continues…]

 

[wanstronian]

…continued]

God doesn’t tell people to murder without a legitimate, non-malicous purpose however - to assume otherwise is evidence of a complete misunderstanding of God.

And here you’re just begging the question. Apart from the fact that there are thousands, if not millions, of different “understandings of God” (none of which can be asserted with any more authority than any of the others), to assume that he ever tells anyone to murder amounts to an implicit sanction of any murder committed in his name. Which is clearly ridiculous.

The wiping out of some smaller cultures was not done purely for the sake of malice - the cultures that were destroyed were pretty nasty and if left unchecked would have simply continued the needless destruction of human life. I recall that one worshipped a large, metal idol which had a hollow inside that allowed it to be heated like an oven. Young children and babies were sacrificially seared alive on its outstretched arms apparently.

You’re beginning to sound like WLC now. The great genocide-supporter. “It’s okay to wipe out an entire species, because God said so!”

Hopefully I’ve made my point - if you can’t even prove the existence of your deity, you can’t rely on “him” in court.

One might make the case that all inhabitants were slain regardless of age or sex, but whether or not they were, there are a few things I can state in defense of it.

1: This was several thousand years ago, in an age where physical cruelty was not unheard of anywhere.

Make a mockery of absolutism, doesn’t it! This would be unheard of now, and with good reason.

2: The cruelty recorded of these “exterminations”, or whatever else one may want to label them, was apparently far less drastic and cruel in comparison to the methods of the cultures destroyed.

That’s the second time you’ve used “apparently.” That’s not really good enough justification, is it?

3: It was the Old Testament [again, thousands of years ago] - in comparison with modern-day Christianity and even modern Judaism, many things were done differently in those times.

Again, whence absolutism?

4: Whether or not you consider these relevant justifications, your belief system, as far as I can currently see [again, I would appreciate it if you elaborated], cannot definitively conclude that these acts were “good” or “bad” - because purpose and morality would be left to the individual [unless as I interpreted earlier that it’s a matter of majority-vote or randomness, or whatever else you may care to elaborate on.]

Well, hopefully I’ve clarified that individual purpose is an individual affair (which of course doesn’t for one second imply that one can do what one wants - not without consequences anyway), while morality is generally driven by societal need and consequences. The difference is that the theist assumes that the rules - and the consequences - are decided by God, whereas the secularist recognises that they are the result of societal evolution. In fact religious morals, most likely, are nothing more than a three-thousand-year-old snapshot of the societal morality of the time. Hence the clear immorality (by today’s evolved standards) of the actions portrayed in the bible and other contemporary literature.

I’ve no doubt at all than in another few thousand years’ time, our descendants will look back and consider us barborous, for reasons that we haven’t even considered.

This is completely ridiculous and is not even relatable to the scenario I gave.

Not at all. You’re saying that it’s fine to kill someone if God’s told you to do it. I made the point that many people have killed and afterwards said that God told them to do it. How can you know whether or not they are deluded?

God has made it clear with the Ten Commandments and by what was taught by Jesus that unlawful killing is wrong and can get you to hell pretty quick.

But if God tells you to do it, it’s not “unlawful.” So why isn’t that a valid defence in a court of law?

Anyone who kills out of a vice is guilty of unlawful killing in God’s eyes, basically. God apparently ordered the destruction of the above-mentioned cultures though, so assuming God didn’t elaborate on who not to kill, the cultures in their entirety would have pretty-much been fair game. In fact I’m pretty sure God told them to completely wipe them out.

“Apparently” again. And you’re “pretty sure?” The problem here is that this is all just written in a book. So it’s not a historical record of anything, it’s just a story. Yet it’s a horrific story, one of many horrific acts sanctioned by God (apparently…) that would never occur today. Why? Because we, in modern secular society, have moved beyond the sort of violent and unethical morality that was the zeitgeist of that age.

Of course it sounds barbaric, and how could God allow such a thing to happen, and why is it not okay to kill now? Well, I have already stated how long ago it was and the circumstances of several thousand years ago should be obvious.

That’s just the point - it isn’t. You’re forgiving an atrocity by saying, “well, that’s just how it was back then.” If you believe that genocide is wrong, then you shouldn’t be making excuses for God’s blood lust back then. “God said it was okay” is not an excuse, unless you can prove that he really did. You’re definitely siding with WLC on this!?

My guess is that it was partially a test of the people’s dedication to God - ie. would they be willing to do everything exactly as God said?

What kind of a moral monster does that make God?

 

[Lui]

Depends on the evidence.

Christ lived and died - no serious historian denies that.

No historian of the time ever mentioned him while he was alive.

His works were witnessed.

30 years+ AFTER he died. NONE while he was alive.

God the Father Revealed Himself to us. Connect the dots…

A matter of faith not evidence.

Catholics have a lot of evidence.

Not really.

 

[wanstronian]

If everything is an accident, then nothing has any real purpose for being here - not you, not me, not the obnoxious guy across the street that yells all the time - so what would be wrong with killing him, if he annoyed me? He had no reason to exist, anyway - he was nothing but an accident the whole time, anyway.

No - nobody has any ultimate purpose. Your life has no purpose beyond what you choose to do with it.

This is not the same as assuming that it’s okay to just kill anyone. The absence of higher purpose does not translate as a lack of a right to life. That, I would hope, is obvious to anybody with any common sense.

 

[Barbkw]

Does humaity have a precise reason for existence?

In took me years, but I now agree with the quote, “…for the glory and honor of God.”

We exist because God loved us into existance and He continues to shine His face upon us each day.

 

[wanstronian]

I would agree with you about belief in a deity being unfounded. However, God revealed Himself to us. That is the big difference. If He had not done so there would be many more pagans around.

Really? When did he do that then?

Or are you talking about the fairy stories of the bible, which, of course, have no evidential basis to them whatever. If you are talking about the bible, I’ll just quote Hitchens: “What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof.”

 

[You]

No - nobody has any ultimate purpose. Your life has no purpose beyond what you choose to do with it.

This is not the same as assuming that it’s okay to just kill anyone. The absence of higher purpose does not translate as a lack of a right to life. That, I would hope, is obvious to anybody with any common sense.

haha whats the point of philosophy if life has no point or purpose.

 

[wanstronian]

This?

Yep.

Well, the post it refers to, clearly.

 

[You]

Yep.

Well, the post it refers to, clearly.

What part?

 

[wanstronian]

Uh no - the probability bound is the top end of all the events and computational power the universe could produce since its beginning. Yes, I have fallen for it.

Then you are a fool, as the number has no scientific rationale.

Evo’s cannot admit this number, so you are lock step with them. Once admitted then the house of cards falls. Keep right on trying though.

No, nor can I admit the average length of a unicorn’s horn or the number of tentacles on the FSM.

 

[Lui]

This is not the same as assuming that it’s okay to just kill anyone. The absence of higher purpose does not translate as a lack of a right to life. That, I would hope, is obvious to anybody with any common sense.

I agree. I don’t get why people who don’t believe in God cannot have moral values. We need moral values for our own survival. If society didn’t agree on values(also called LAWS), and people would just randomly kill each other, our own life would be in jeopardy, Humans have always lived in groups, tribes, societies and developed rules, laws, agreements in order to secure survival.

Animals do the same. Chimpanzees live in groups. They don’t just go around and kill their group members whenever they feel like it. They have rules too.

 

[wanstronian]

Read the book. The you are in a position to argue it.

I’m not interested in arguing it. Believe what you like. But if the book’s central argument is the existence of a universal moral code, then it fails to provide the evidence for God that it purports to. It’s as simple as that.

 

[tonyrey]

A neologism which implies blind faith in the magical power of that which is most obviously under our feet.

Irrelevant invective which fails to refute my statement.

False and irrelevant.

Not at all - you made a big show of trotting out a string of “sub”-prefixed words with the clear intent of implying such a prefix to denote inferiority. Proving that the only thing really inferior is your grasp of word meanings.

Irrelevant invective which fails to refute my statement.

Irrelevant.

But true.

Unsubstantiated assertion which fails to refute my statement.

Irrelevant invective which infringes forum conduct rule 1.

Get off your high horse.

Irrelevant.

It’s not irrelevant, it’s true.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

You misrepresent naturalism. You commit the fallacy of “Poisoning the well.” At least it’s a change from your normal fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance.

Unsubstantiated assertions.

Superfluous.

You’re really clutching at straws now? How about you attack my argument, rather than my style? Oh, I forgot - it’s because you can’t!

Unsubstantiated assertions.

1. The success of science demonstrates that the creative power of the mind is incomparably more efficient and consistent than the blind meanderings of purposeless particles.

2 .The most adequate explanation of the universe is its creation by one Supreme Being who is reflected in its highest aspects: consciousness, rationality, morality, autonomy, purpose and love.

No - I said, “Tell us what really happened.” All you’ve done is continue to misrepresent the scientifically established concensus…

consensus…

…on reality (in Point 1), and wave some meaningless rhetoric around (in Point 2).

Unsubstantiated assertion.

TELL US WHAT HAPPENED. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

The most adequate explanation of the universe is its creation by one Supreme Being - in stark contrast to the incoherent hypothesis that inanimate particles of energy have succeeded in formulating the irrational explanation that they alone are responsible for creating everything that exists - including the proponents of that irrational explanation…

 

[wanstronian]

Let us start here:

I will give you an atheist:

The unnatural selection of consciousness - Ray Tallis argues that there is no evolutionary explanation of consciousness

Well, I asked for a source that “demonstrated,” not one that merely speculates, and written by a man who has no scientific background in this area.

But okay, you found a source. Well done. It’s just one guy’s opinion though, and it doesn’t agree with the groundswell of opinion.

Also, as one commenter pointed out, he’s not being very scientific (well, he’s not a scientist) - he doesn’t offer any alternative explanation.

btw, it’s hilarious how you guys think that summoning up an atheist who disagrees with other atheists somehow destroys atheism! People are allowed to disagree, you know. It isn’t the weakness you seem to think it is.

 

[tonyrey]

  			Originally Posted by **wanstronian**

That’s the conjuring trick! You can by some inexplicable means create it for yourself even though you happen to be the purposeless product of purposeless events!

 

[wanstronian]

haha whats the point of philosophy if life has no point or purpose.

Good question. I personally see little point in the branches of philosophy that deal with purpose, as they are begging the question.

 

[dingodile]

There is no accepted naturalistic explanation of consciousness, and there is certainly no consensus in the scientific community that there is one. There may be a strong tendency in the scientific community to believe that there will eventually be such an explanation, but that’s a faith commitment.

The “explanatory gap” is as wide as ever, and shows no signs of going away.

Similarly, although we think and write about these various topics, there is still no accepted naturalistic explanation of how brain states can be about anything.

Finally, the process of reasoning itself presupposes that reasons are not just causes–at least not, without presupposing a conception of reasons that are not just causes.

 

[Barbkw]

There is no accepted naturalistic explanation of consciousness, and there is certainly no consensus in the scientific community that there is one. There may be a strong tendency in the scientific community to believe that there will eventually be such an explanation, but that’s a faith commitment.

The “explanatory gap” is as wide as ever, and shows no signs of going away.

Similarly, although we think and write about these various topics, there is still no accepted naturalistic explanation of how brain states can be about anything.

Finally, the process of reasoning itself presupposes that reasons are not just causes–at least not, without presupposing a conception of reasons that are not just causes.

Have you ever visited a stroke patient ward? There are scientific explanations and medical diagnosis concerning consciousness.

 

[buffalo]

No historian of the time ever mentioned him while he was alive.

30 years+ AFTER he died. NONE while he was alive.

A matter of faith not evidence.

Not really.

Historians of the time wrote little about any religious figures at all. So when any references are found it is extraordinary.

"The ancient Romans were scrupulously careful to preserve the memory of all remarkable events which happened in the city; and this was done either in their “Acts of the Senate” (Acts Senatus), or in the “Daily Acts of the People” (Acta Diurna Populi), which were diligently made and kept at Rome . . . In like manner it was customary for the governors of provinces to send to the emperor an account of remarkable transactions that occurred in the places where they resided, which were preserved in the “Acts of” their respective governments . . . we find, long before the time of Eusebius [3rd century], that the primitive Christians, in their disputes with the Gentiles, appealed to these “Acts of Pilate” . . . Thus, Justin Martyr, in his first “Apology” for the Christians, which was presented to the Emperor Antoninus Pius [A.D. 138-161] and the senate of Rome, about the year [A.D.] 140, having mentioned the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and some of its attendant circumstances, adds, “And these things were done, you may know from the ‘Acts’ made in the time of Pontius Pilate.” [1] . Cyclonic and Strong. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. 1867-1887. 62-63.

His works were witnessed by thousands. His appearance after Resurrection was witnessed by thousands.

In addition, at the time information was passed orally. So we have written records and tradition.

Yes really.

 

[dingodile]

Have you ever visited a stroke patient ward? There are scientific explanations and medical diagnosis concerning consciousness.

No there aren’t. There isn’t even a hint of an explanation of why brain activity is correlated with consciousness at all. That there are correlations between the two isn’t in doubt, but correlations are not explanations.

There is a correlation between heating water to 212F and the water boiling. In addition to that correlation, there is an explanation of why the correlation exists. The explanation is something over and above the mere observed correlation. Medical treatment of stroke patients, as well as the methods of anaesthesiologists, make use of the observed correlations, but there is no explanation for them.