Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible

[ToddNotTodd]

Can facts can be true for science but not for morality?

Science = Objective
Morality = Subjective

 

[Shempster]

I do not think that the Bible is the best evidence of God. Have you not noticed that it appears to have many contradictive passages. Of course we can see how it all fits, but it is all part of the veil that keeps Him hidden. Obviously that is what He wants. Its part of obtaining faith.
I have stopped trying to prove to athiests that God exists. They are humanists, so I just let them watch me and see how my life is full of peace, contentment and love.
I would hope they might eventually get tired of a life full of pain, anxiety and fear.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have stopped trying to prove to athiests that God exists. They are humanists, so I just let them watch me and see how my life is full of peace, contentment and love.

Atheists are not necessarily humanists. Not believing in God doesn't make you a humanist.

I would hope they might eventually get tired of a life full of pain, anxiety and fear.

Not that tired...

 

[The Cadet]

Have you not noticed that it appears to have many contradictive passages. Of course we can see how it all fits, but it is all part of the veil that keeps Him hidden. Obviously that is what He wants. Its part of obtaining faith.

So wait. His message to us is full of contradictions... Because he wants to hide from us? He's explicitly giving us reasons not to believe so that we have to take it on faith? But he should know full well that "faith" is not good enough for us, and we have good reasons for thinking that.

I would hope they might eventually get tired of a life full of pain, anxiety and fear.

I would hope you wouldn't assume my life is full of pain, anxiety, and fear simply because I don't believe something you do.

 

[Ratjaws]

Note the bold part. EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS has a cause. Your own words.



Note again the bold part.
Here, you are saying that it is ABSURD to consider a certain thing to be real / existent when it has never been observed or demonstrated to be real / existent!



Does god exist? If so, then god has a cause => your own rule above!
Following the rest of your argument, we need to define a Super God to explain the existance of God. But wait, if Super God exists, then we need a Supreme God to explain the existance of Super God. But wait, if Supreme God exists, then we need a Super Supreme God to explain the existence of Supreme God. Etc.

Has god ever been observed / demonstrated to be real? If not, then it is absurd to believe it => your own rule above as well!!


Perhaps you should re-examine your argument here.

DogmaHunter,
Sorry I'm not explaining myself very well here. Let me rephrase: Everything in the material world that we can observe has a cause. We don't see any material being that does not come from something else.

Now as I've explained before, we are then faced with two possibilities... that this cause and effect goes on forever... which is absurd because again we don't see infinity in any of these beings. Cause and effect cannot go on forever in material being so we are faced with an uncaused Cause, or First Cause, defined as God.

Demonstrate? I never said God can be demonstrated scientifically, not directly anyhow. Nevertheless I am speaking prescientifically here because this argument is from observation. We can see cause and effect and work backwards, as scientists do when in the study of cosmology, they work back toward the Big Bang. So I give you a reasonable demonstration of God's existence short of you shaking his hand. If you want the latter you will never get it but I have never argued it either.

In short this evidence is indirect as is our evidence gathered for the beginning of the universe. So the question becomes are you willing to be fair and accept what is allowable in scientific argumentation, observation of effect back to cause, as the basis of argument for God's existence?

 

[Ratjaws]

That's a direct contradiction. An absolute by definition has no exceptions.

Cadet,
There are different senses to this word just as there are to other words. In relation to God speaking of absoluteness means without exception. In relation to anything created there can be exceptions. We speak of absolute darkness yet there is also light. I was refering to the created order of beings as a chain of cause and effect and so I simply meant this cannot go on forever because our world is finite. Maybe this was a confusing way to put it but the main idea is that we must end somewhere as we trace back from effect to cause because there cannot be an infinite number of finite beings. Even if there were we could never observe such a thing so it is scientifically untestable. We can approach this from reason, as we must, and so there is a Cause that has no cause which is by definition, God. Note here that I am not doing as some here presuppose, reasoning God exists therefore there must be the First Cause... no I am looking back from existent things now through their causes to the First Cause. Again if not for this Cause which has no cause we would have to propose an infinite chain of cause and effects or that matter and energy always existed... neither of which are tenable, neither of which are scientifically testable.

 

[Ratjaws]

Science = Objective
Morality = Subjective

Todd,
That's a needless oversimplification. In both cases, for science and morality we use our mind.

We hear something wiz past our head and look in the direction our ears tell us it went. We see it sticking in the way, walk up to it, look closer, it has no smell. We pull it from the wall and determine it is an arrow. We note it's size, weight, shape, the sharpness of the tip and that the feathers seem synthetic rather than real. We are doing science (sciencia: knowledge).

Someone comes out of the bushes with a bow and arrow pointed at us. We ask them what is their intention? They say give me your wallet. We decide it's time to turn and run. We are making a moral judgment.

We do both withour our mind... the subjective part. Both have objects we observe, that is use our five senses to perceive the objective facts. So wether we use our intellect in an act of judgment (science) or act of conscience (moral judgment), we are taking facts apart from our mind to find the truth concerning the reality around us.

Therefore facts are present in both science and morality!

 

[Ana the Ist]

Todd,
That's a needless oversimplification. In both cases, for science and morality we use our mind.

We hear something wiz past our head and look in the direction our ears tell us it went. We see it sticking in the way, walk up to it, look closer, it has no smell. We pull it from the wall and determine it is an arrow. We note it's size, weight, shape, the sharpness of the tip and that the feathers seem synthetic rather than real. We are doing science (sciencia: knowledge).

Someone comes out of the bushes with a bow and arrow pointed at us. We ask them what is their intention? They say give me your wallet. We decide it's time to turn and run. We are making a moral judgment.

We do both withour our mind... the subjective part. Both have objects we observe, that is use our five senses to perceive the objective facts. So wether we use our intellect in an act of judgment (science) or act of conscience (moral judgment), we are taking facts apart from our mind to find the truth concerning the reality around us.

Therefore facts are present in both science and morality!

There aren't any moral facts.

There are moral opinions...but no moral facts. I understand that you believe otherwise, so...

How would you determine a moral fact? How would you prove a moral fact?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Archaeopteryx,
No, I don't see the error in saying the First Cause is an uncaused Cause. Are you implying there cannot be absolutes with exceptions? How so?

You stated that all things require a cause, but then demanded an exception for your deity, without justification. That is special pleading.

Is your trouble with my calling this exception, this initial cause... God?

That too is problematic. Why assume it must a deity?

Is it just that you prefer a world without God... or without rules that come along with Go except those that you make for yourself... or a world without sin where one need not account for their own actions? This despite the FACT that we see evil and sinful actions (people) all around us. Can facts can be true for science but not for morality?

Your psychic abilities have failed you.

 

[Joshua260]

Also, miracles are impossible by definition. They are defined as events that suspend / violate the laws of nature.

No...a miracle does *not* mean that something violated the laws of nature. This is a common misunderstanding. Once there is an intrusion into this nature from outside of this nature, the laws of this nature act on it just like they would on any other given day. For example, suppose that you modified your car engine by installing improved spark plugs. Once that is done, the laws of nature would react in kind. "F" still equals "ma"...before and after the intrusion.

I recommend you read "Miracles" by C.S. Lewis for further info.

 

[Joshua260]

Morality = Subjective

Wow. That's quite a claim. So you believe that there's *really* nothing wrong with Anti-Semitism, then. Some people may think's it's morally right and others may think it's morally wrong, but neither belief is objectively correct.

Also, that seems to be a truth claim. Have you never heard the quote below from a fellow non-believer Louise Anthony?

“Any argument for moral skepticism is going to be based on premises which are less obvious than the reality of moral values themselves."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/intransigence-about-objective-moral-values


So you're going to have to convince me why I should doubt my sense that "raping little girls for fun" is *really* wrong. I don't see why I should believe you in spite of a reality that seems so obvious.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Wow. That's quite a claim. So you believe that there's *really* nothing wrong with Anti-Semitism, then. Some people may think's it's morally right and others may think it's morally wrong, but neither belief is objectively correct.

Also, that seems to be a truth claim. Have you never heard the quote below from a fellow non-believer Louise Anthony?

“Any argument for moral skepticism is going to be based on premises which are less obvious than the reality of moral values themselves."

So you're going to have to convince me why I should doubt my sense that "raping little girls for fun" is *really* wrong. I don't see why I should believe you in spite of a reality that seems so obvious.

"Not objective" is not equivalent to "not wrong." You've made a basic mistake here.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Wow. That's quite a claim. So you believe that there's *really* nothing wrong with Anti-Semitism, then. Some people may think's it's morally right and others may think it's morally wrong, but neither belief is objectively correct.

Also, that seems to be a truth claim. Have you never heard the quote below from a fellow non-believer Louise Anthony?

“Any argument for moral skepticism is going to be based on premises which are less obvious than the reality of moral values themselves."

So you're going to have to convince me why I should doubt my sense that "raping little girls for fun" is *really* wrong. I don't see why I should believe you in spite of a reality that seems so obvious.

When one googles that quote, guess what is found? Yep... Another Craigite.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wow. That's quite a claim. So you believe that there's *really* nothing wrong with Anti-Semitism, then. Some people may think's it's morally right and others may think it's morally wrong, but neither belief is objectively correct.

Also, that seems to be a truth claim. Have you never heard the quote below from a fellow non-believer Louise Anthony?

“Any argument for moral skepticism is going to be based on premises which are less obvious than the reality of moral values themselves."

So you're going to have to convince me why I should doubt my sense that "raping little girls for fun" is *really* wrong. I don't see why I should believe you in spite of a reality that seems so obvious.

Hey Joshua,

I think we can meet ToddNotTodd half way on this issue. Morality really is subjective---IF there is no God to define it for us.

And IF there is a God (of the Bible) ... well then, we've got some things to clean up in our lives, and quickly!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Hey Joshua,

I think we can meet ToddNotTodd half way on this issue. Morality really is subjective---IF there is no God to define it for us.

How would the addition of deities make it objective?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How would the addition of deities make it objective?

I didn't say "deities," Arch. Let's focus on what I actually said ...

God (Jesus), being the Creator, knows how we puny, socially and morally awkward people need to act to keep our lives afloat and moving toward a better outcome, namely, Eternal Life by way of relationship with the Perfect Creator.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I didn't say "deities," Arch. Let's focus on what I actually said ...

You could have said deities (plural) or deity (singular) and the question would remain essentially the same.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You could have said deities (plural) or deity (singular) and the question would remain essentially the same.

Not really. Hinduism, and any other alternatives to Christian faith, are different in their theological construct(s) than Christianity. Let's not equivocate.

Moreover, I just added a bit to my previous post. Maybe you want to respond to that as well?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God (Jesus), being the Creator, knows how we puny, socially and morally awkward people need to act to keep our lives afloat and moving toward a better outcome, namely, Eternal Life by way of relationship with the Perfect Creator.

Okay, but what does that have to do with the purported objectivity of moral propositions?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay, but what does that have to do with the purported objectivity of moral propositions?

The objectivity is that a Perfect God would know perfectly what we imperfect (and failure prone) human beings need to do in order to maintain right relationships. The objectivity is in God's knowledge ... we, on the other hand, don't know all that we need to do morally, so we are in a subjective place.