Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible

[Archaeopteryx]

Regardless of where it came from, does that mean the quote is incorrect? Of course not...you're just replying with an ad hominem attack that has no bearing on the actual argument.

Sorry, I'm just weary of the Craigite socks. They're so predictable.

Anyway...I went and sourced it for you now. So going back to the actual discussion now ...why should I disbelieve what seems to be so obvious...that raping little girls for fun is *really *wrong?

Who said otherwise? You're making the same basic error as you did before: assuming that something cannot be wrong on a subjectivist account of ethics.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The question I pose is "Do Objective moral values and duties exist or not?" Care to answer?

If they do exist, they are not to be found in your religion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Archaeopteryx,
I apologize for being unclear... by all things I meant all material beings... if you will all beings that can be scrutinized with empirical science.

So immaterial things don't require a cause? How do you know that?

Now you point to one being in our world that does not come from something else and I will reconsider my position. And note here you cannot claim the universe is one since it is not an entity, rather the universe is more properly defined as the totality of all existing things. So you have to point to a specific thing within this universe, this one-verse, and show me how it is self-sufficient in order to rid us of an uncaused Cause. In fact you have to point to many uncaused causes in order to rid us of one uncaused cause.

You've identified the fallacy of composition in your own argument.

Why assume a deity? Well we are not assuming rather coming to the conclusion from a sequence of logical judgments. As I said we work back from what exists in front of us now, back from effect to it's cause, and go on and on like this, and we have to end somewhere or, we are faced with a universe of being that always existed, with a chain of being constantly flowing from it... OR, on the other hand, it had a beginning ready made so-to-speak. Why should we suppose either of this ideas? The first assumes infinity which we do not see anywhere in the universe. The second begs the question of how that first matter was there to start the chain of cause and effect. We simply put off the very question we are trying to answer with the second case.

Neither outcome seems to point to a deity.

So we propose there must have been a beginning to this chain of cause and effect.

A beginning doesn't necessarily point to theism. A beginning may just be a "first moment in time," a temporal boundary.

We also know the cause must be greater than the effect(s). So we know this first cause must be at least great enough to account for the vastness of our universe in all its beauty and splendor. It must have within it the complexity it has given to the universe of being we see all around us. It must be a power at least as great as the power(s) we see manifest in our universe. And we don't need to assume it has exhausted it's capacity and power in causing all the being we see around us. We can postulate this cause has an infinite capacity. It has infinite power.

I don't see how any of this follows. Why couldn't it have exhausted itself? Why must it have infinite capacity?

Also since there is intelligence in our world this cause must also be intelligent...

That doesn't follow at all. There are also stars in this universe, so the cause must also be a star?

It must be a cause that is living since it has caused life... and on and on we go.

It must also be nebulous, since it caused the formation of nebulae.

We end up defining God, or put another way, we have a definition of God in our mind, that which nothing is greater, and we simply make the logical conclusion that God fits this first cause. That First Cause which is self-sufficient is what we define as God.

I don't think you've adequately justified why this cause must be a deity. Why can't the universe be "self-sufficient"?

 

[Ratjaws]

The problem with devout Christians is they can't accept the bible is just stories. Written by men with no real knowledge of how the world works. So anything like the melting of the Ice Caps at the end of the Ice Age, which flooded the area around the Black Sea. Is taken as an act of God. Same with the Plagues, they're all natural occurrences. When Israel was suffering from these plagues, it made sense to get rid of all the foreigners.

Paulm50,
The problem with non-Christians is that they can't accept the bible is divine revelation. You are wrong in saying the bible is just stories. It is more than stories and it must be interpreted correctly. There are 4 senses found in scripture that must be taken into account when interpreting it. The literal, allegorical, anagogical and spiritual. Each of these senses must be taken into account in order to get at the mind of those who were inspired to write it. Unfortunately my Protestant brothers and sisters don't recognize this and tend toward the literal sense beyond what is possible. This is in great part why they make too much of scripture in relation to empirical science. Instead of exegeting (pulling out from) scripture they read into (eisegete) it using knowledge from modern science. This is what non-Christians correctly see as erroneous but mistakenly attribute it to the bible text when it has been forced on it by well meaning but poorly educated Christians.

Paulm50 said:
"Though one has to think. If all these acts of genocide were gods work. He prefers death, slaughter and genocide to a far simpler and kinder solution. By staying quiet, 100s will die today, as they did yesterday and as they will tomorrow, To follow the millions who have already died. In wars over who worships this god the right way.
Or is god not responsible for them?"

Reply:
You, as a non-Christian, need to realize that individual Christians are a completely different "animal" from the Christian Church, the former can sin, the latter whose duty it is to teach the faith in all it's integrity, cannot error. Clearly we see in the old testament scriptures God directing the Isrealites to go in and slaughter other nations. Some times God instructed them to go easy on them and only subdue those who resist. Other times God commanded them to slaughter everyone and take their possessions. In either case you must realize it was the Creator giving these commands to the Isrealites... that is the one who is the Author of life. God has every right over life since He is the one who initiates and maintains human life. What God gives He can take... period!

You also need to realize God justly took the life of the Canaanites and other people who He had preiously instructed to repent from their immoral behavior. They refused so God used the Isrealites, His chosen people, as His instrument of punishment. He did so justly and gave these evil nations every chance to turn from their evil ways and repent or face the consequences.

Additionally you need to realize that whether we lose our life in this world justly or unjustly, this is not the end. As scripture states man can take the body but not the soul. In-other-words this life is only a temporary testing ground to see if we will chose to love God or turn away from Him. We do so by "loving our neighbors" as scripture puts it. Of course our closest neighbors are our family in biblical terms and this happens to be the primal ground of life. It is where new human life comes into being with a man and women's cooperation with God who provides the new and unique soul. It is sacred and at the core of moral behavior God desires... that is to protect human life and where it comes from and where it is nurtured... within the family.

With all this in mind you should also see that while God directly commanded (theocracy) the Isrealites to go in and slaughter unrepentant evil doers, He has never done this to any group of people since. Rather God gave a Church meant to pass out "faith and morals" and allows for governments to maintain any given society within those moral limits He makes plain through the Church. God gave each of us a conscience to recognize right from wrong. He gave the Church with it's moral teaching (as summed up in the Ten Commandments) to clarify principles necessary to morally discern more clearly. Altogether God expects us to charish our own life and protect that of other persons no matter what their so-called quality of life is. He especially works through family and wants it protected; He gives parents the primary responsibility for teaching their children correctly concerning the meaning of life as well as teaching right from wrong.

Even though "how to worship" God has been a factor in some wars, it is not the only reason and you do a disservice to humanity by implying so. War has been initiated by non-Christians and Christians alike, and people have defended themselves and their loved ones in war. It is not immoral to defend oneself, family, friends or nation, and in fact, it may be wrong to allow others around us to die without voicing opposition, as you have done here. The Church has a moral responsibility in all this too, just as individual persons do. So there have been times, such as the Crusades, when the Church has not only sanctioned defense of some group of persons or places, but had Her members actively involved in armed conflict. One cannot judge this kind of thing as absolutely immoral since there are many persons with many motives involved. This is because there are also principles involved, such as the rules of just war (or when defense can be justified), that must be taken into account.

 

[Fred Nurks]

(...)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.

I apologize for being unclear... by all things I meant all material beings...

First, a mere "uncaused first cause" is a very poor definition of God. Most people -theists and atheists alike- would say at least personal, necessarily existing, and willful are necessary attributes for a being in order to be called God.

Then, if I punch someone on the nose -very much a material thing- do I understand correctly that according to you ultimately the first cause for that punch is God, and not me?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

peace, contentment and love.

Everyone has that.

pain, anxiety and fear.

Everyone has that too.

 

[The Cadet]

Also, Matt won't even talk to anyone who mentions Pascal's wager anymore. That's what he said himself...if someone mentions it, he said he will simply hang up on them. That's unfortunate because, after listening to him attempt to refute it one time, it became clear that he obviously does not understand Pascal's argument and now he refuses to listen anyone try to correct his misunderstanding of it.

To be fair, I prefer not to as well. Pascal's wager is possibly the dumbest argument for the existence of god I have ever heard. It's so blatantly and obviously wrong in so many ways that it demonstrates an extreme failure of basic reasoning to attempt to put it forward.

 

[The Cadet]

Well, whenever you sober up, you should learn that declaring that there *is* a right and wrong is the same thing as declaring that there *are* *objective* MV&Ds.

I think life is preferable to death. Some 99.999% of people believe this. Yeah, it's not objective, but it does mean that murder ought to be considered immoral if we want to achieve a functional society. It's like the rules of a game of chess - there's no objective claim that a knight has to move that way, but we want to play chess, so we're going to follow the rules. This gives us a strong framework with which to determine whether things are right if we want to form a functional society and wrong if we want to form a functional society. There are objectively better and worse moves in Chess.

When a body of men and women get together and *decide* what they think *should* be right and wrong, they are applying their "subjective" opinions about it. It doesn't prove that objective right and wrong actually exist...

What does provide objective right and wrong? Just out of curiosity.

If Hitler had killed off everyone who did not agree with his anti-Semitic views, then there would have been universal agreement that Anti-Semitism is a moral good.

Except that racism and religious bigotry would still be societal ills. And by analogy (see also: "shroud of ignorance"), it would be trivial to see that anti-semitism is equivalent to things like christian persecution or muslim persecution, and therefore still wrong.

 

[Joshua260]

Which means this will probably be a dodge.

Rather, it seems to me like you dodged. The following was a clear yes or no question:
Joshua260 said: ↑
The question I pose is "Do Objective moral values and duties exist or not?" Care to answer?

Sure. I have yet to see anyone make a compelling case for their existence from a religious standpoint.

Are you unwilling to answer with a simple yes or no?

 

[Joshua260]

To be fair, I prefer not to as well. Pascal's wager is possibly the dumbest argument for the existence of god I have ever heard. It's so blatantly and obviously wrong in so many ways that it demonstrates an extreme failure of basic reasoning to attempt to put it forward.

Really. So I challenge you to state his argument correctly. Rarely, or more accurately never, have I heard an atheist get it right.

 

[Joshua260]

The Cadet said: ↑
...it's so universal among humans that it's entirely reasonable to structure our society around it

Joshua reply:
If Hitler had killed off everyone who did not agree with his anti-Semitic views, then there would have been universal agreement that Anti-Semitism is a moral good.

Except that racism and religious bigotry would still be societal ills. And by analogy (see also: "shroud of ignorance"), it would be trivial to see that anti-semitism is equivalent to things like christian persecution or muslim persecution, and therefore still wrong.

You can't even acknowledge that I used your own reasoning to prove your point wrong...instead, you counterattack with a red herring. So getting back to the subject, just because there is universal agreement about an issue, that does not make it right or wrong. Murdering everyone who disagrees with the immorality of murder does not make murder moral. The herd mentality argument for morality falls flat on it's face.

 

[Joshua260]

You're making the same basic error as you did before: assuming that something cannot be wrong on a subjectivist account of ethics.

My belief that there are objective moral values and duties is just as valid as my believe in the outside world. It's called a properly basic belief. For example, if you tried to convince me that I'm really just a brain in a vat, you would have to provide a really good argument to justify my acceptance of your claim. In like manner, the existence of OMV&Ds is a properly basic belief, and I am perfectly justified in believing in them until you provide a pretty good argument to the contrary.

So really, it is you who are making an assumption without any reason to do so. That was the whole point of the quote I provided earlier. Any argument claiming that OMV&Ds do *not* exist would have to based on premises that are much more convincing that what seems to be obvious (that they do exist).

Try this out:
Is raping little girls for fun *really* wrong, no matter what any human being thinks?
Answer yes or no.
If no, then you will need to provide an argument for why we should disbelieve what seems to be so obvious. To believe otherwise without justification would be irrational.

 

[Laury]

Murdering everyone who disagrees with the immorality of murder does not make murder moral. The herd mentality argument for morality falls flat on it's face.

Just a question: Do you think it would've been moral to kill Hitler in order to stop the holocaust?

 

[The Cadet]

Really. So I challenge you to state his argument correctly. Rarely, or more accurately never, have I heard an atheist get it right.

We cannot know whether or not god exists, so we must wager. If you believe in god, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. If you don't, you have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Ergo, we should bet on god's existence every time.

And then there are some extra bits in which he tries to rationalize away every other religion's hell, but that's the basic gist of it. And it is phenomenally flawed.

Murdering everyone who disagrees with the immorality of murder does not make murder moral.

Well, not retroactively, anyways. But again, it's about the goals we want to pursue. Is the goal of our morality to build a better society? Well then there are objectively better or worse moves. Is the goal of our morality "kill 'em all"? Well then clearly, we're talking about two very different things, and I'm not sure I feel comfortable referring to that as morality.

 

[Davian]

Rather, it seems to me like you dodged.

Of course, even when the hypothetical I put to you as an opportunity for you to clarify what you meant by "objective moral values" preceded your question.

The following was a clear yes or no question:
Joshua260 said: ↑
The question I pose is "Do Objective moral values and duties exist or not?" Care to answer?

Are you unwilling to answer with a simple yes or no?

If we pretend, for a moment, that we are in a philosophy forum, and not grandstanding apologetics on a stage somewhere, it should be clear that demanding a yes or no answer to such a loaded question would be intellectually dishonest.

I cannot answer "yes" if I do not know what an objective moral is in the context of your question, and to answer "no" would put me in the position of denying the existence of something that we may not even agree upon.

It is also a [fallacious] false dichotomy on your part, as it does not permit the actual position I might hold, such as "I don't know" or "I have insufficient information".

To reiterate my earlier question to you: I have been told by another in these forums there are circumstances where [hypothetically] someone has observed a child being raped, and has the ability to interfere, allows it to happen, and says nothing to anyone about it, and, in some roundabout logic that I cannot grasp, this 'someone' is still [within the hypothetical] considered "good".

If you knew that I had observed a child being raped, and had the ability to interfere, yet allowed it to happen, and kept quiet about it, by your "objective" morality would I be "good" or "bad"?

 

[Joshua260]

If they do exist, they are not to be found in your religion.

I'm not interested in discussing OMV&Ds with you if you are going to take the agnostic position.

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua260 said: ↑
The question I pose is "Do Objective moral values and duties exist or not?" Care to answer?

I cannot answer "yes" if I do not know what an objective moral is in the context of your question, and to answer "no" would put me in the position of denying the existence of something that we may not even agree upon.

"Objective" means that something is right or wrong regardless of what any human being thinks.

It is also a [fallacious] false dichotomy on your part, as it does not permit the actual position I might hold, such as "I don't know" or "I have insufficient information".

Lol!! That's not fallacious at all!! It is either A or not A. All you are doing is refusing to make a truth claim.

However, I *have* made the truth claim the OMV&Ds do exist, based on a properly basic belief...just like I believe in the existence of the outside world, memories, and that the world did not just come into being 5 minutes ago...and I have so far not heard any rebuttal to it.

Instead of demonstrating why I am incorrect, all I'm getting from you atheists is that you "don't know" or that you have "insufficient information" and that is not a truth claim, but simply a refusal to engage...or as you put it...a dodge.

 

[anonymous person]

Joshua260, you have made some good points. Don't expect much from Davian though.

 

[Ratjaws]

So immaterial things don't require a cause? How do you know that?

You've identified the fallacy of composition in your own argument.

Neither outcome seems to point to a deity.

A beginning doesn't necessarily point to theism. A beginning may just be a "first moment in time," a temporal boundary.

I don't see how any of this follows. Why couldn't it have exhausted itself? Why must it have infinite capacity?

That doesn't follow at all. There are also stars in this universe, so the cause must also be a star?

It must also be nebulous, since it caused the formation of nebulae.

I don't think you've adequately justified why this cause must be a deity. Why can't the universe be "self-sufficient"?

Arch,
I appreciate your comments. No, I don't think immaterial beings are without a cause. I was just trying to simplify the argument, since introducing the immaterial aspect of our world complicates the subject. Also most non-Christians who take your perspective don't accept anything but the material world since what is immaterial cannot be proven directly with the scientific method.

Anyhow, angelic beings and God are the only immaterial beings we know of. God by definition has no cause so this excludes Him from the cause and effect chain. Although angels require a cause one can't as easily go from cause and effect argument since angels were created all at once. That is they don't generate each other as animate material beings do. In fact according to St. Thomas Aquinas, unlike living material beings, each angel is a separate species. Of course this last statement is beside the point.

Unfortunately in claiming I violated the composition fallacy law you failed to indicate why. I pulled this definition from Wikipedia: "The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)." I don't see how this applies?

You said: "A beginning doesn't necessarily point to theism. A beginning may just be a 'first moment in time,' a temporal boundary." You mention time assuming it is also not uncaused. From my perspective time is not an existent being, rather is a being of reason. Time exists only in our mind as a sign of changeable being. Our idea of time exists precisely because beings exist that change and therefore time is a measure of this changeableness. So time in effect has a cause in that the beings it applies to are caused. We come back to the original question of tracing back from effect to cause does it stop and therefore have a beginning? If so, why? What is it's cause? The question of what is the cause of the first changeable being implies what is the cause of time?

As for whether the First Cause exhausts itself or not this was an unnecessary complication I made to my argument. I did so only because at this point I had determined that there was a First Cause... and this cause had to at least be as great as all of it's effects. If that First Cause is sufficient to account for all of the effects present, and nothing more, then this First Cause has exhausted itself and could not cause anything further. So if the First Cause can continue to 'create' new being then it must have within itself more of these effects and so could not have exhausted itself. Nevertheless I suppose you are still not convinced of the necessity for a First Cause at all so we can set aside this point about whether the First Cause has infinite capacity or not.

You ask about particular beings, such as stars or nebulae. Because stars exist this cause must be a star or because nebulae exist this cause must be a nebulae, implying a kind of incongruency to what I lay out here. Well this is a good point of distinction and the absurdity of it disappears once you properly understand what I mean by the First Cause. I've already said this Cause must have Intelligence, since it is the cause of lesser intellects. In other words all the beings we see around us are effects of this First Cause, that by definition must have those effects within it somehow. You assume effects such as stars and nebulae are in this First Cause, as they exist in our world (as material being), but I say that is not necessary. All that is necessary for this Intelligent Cause is to have each effect within it's mind for those effects to be possible. The difference between possibility and actuality are in the will. I mean what is in the Mind of this Intelligent Being comes into existence not because it is there but because this Being, this Intelligent First Cause wills it to be. We ourselves mirror this since what is in our mind is not an actuality until we determine (will) it to be. For instance we have an idea of how the engine of our car should run even though it does not so we do some work to cause this ideal to move from potency in our mind to actuality in the car. We repair (cause) the car according to how we understand it should work. We don't just think it to be repaired but we do some act, that is we first must will for that image in our mind to be what is in reality in relation to the car. Our will causes us to act in a way that the idea in our mind becomes real. Likewise for the Mind of this First Cause and it's Will. There may be an infinite number of ideas in the Mind of this First Cause but they don't become a reality until that Mind Wills any particular idea into existence.

Lastly, you ask why the universe cannot have it's sufficiency in itself? As I've said before the "universe" is not an existing being rather it is the totality of all existent beings. So you must refer to a specific individual being in order to pose this question. In doing so you simply beg the original question as to is there a first cause or not? Can each of the beings in our universe trace back through their cause ad-infinitium, or must we stop at some point determining there is a First Cause. Again you won't prove with anything available to you (IE. the scientific method) that this chain goes on forever. In fact not only do we not see infinity in our material world, but the idea of infinity is absurd in relation to cause and effect of real beings. This is not to say we cannot have an idea of infinity in our mind, which we do when it comes to things that can be quantified, that is they can be measured. So while we see infinity in beings of reason we do not see infinity in relation to real existing beings.

With all this in mind, allow me to ask you a question: If any particular being in this universe is self-sufficient can you point it out for me?

 

[Ratjaws]

Joshua260 said: ↑
The question I pose is "Do Objective moral values and duties exist or not?" Care to answer?



"Objective" means that something is right or wrong regardless of what any human being thinks.


Lol!! That's not fallacious at all!! It is either A or not A. All you are doing is refusing to make a truth claim.

However, I *have* made the truth claim the OMV&Ds do exist, based on a properly basic belief...just like I believe in the existence of the outside world, memories, and that the world did not just come into being 5 minutes ago...and I have so far not heard any rebuttal to it.

Instead of demonstrating why I am incorrect, all I'm getting from you atheists is that you "don't know" or that you have "insufficient information" and that is not a truth claim, but simply a refusal to engage...or as you put it...a dodge.

Joshua,
In a way what those here are saying, who propose there is no objective morality, is that there is a disconnect between the human mind and the world around us. They are saying one cannot trust their mind. One cannot really know what is around them with certainty. They have in a very real way given themselves over to the philosophical idea of Skepticism. I think Descartes was instrumental in institutionalizing this mindset, although he was not trying to. He is quoted as saying "cogito, ergo sum," meaning: I think, therefore I am. He said this because he was determined to start his philosophical musing by admitting he knew nothing and work from there outward to what he could safely affirm. Of course we do think and we do exist but to base a new philosophical movement on doubt is to have a false start. And those who start with Skepticism, knowingly or unknowingly, have left the real world.

I am what one would call a Thomist Realist, which by the way is conducive to Christian theological truth, as St. Thomas Aquinas has shown. This simply means I start with reality. Truth is conformity of our mind to reality in-other-words. I work out from there with the real world as my standard... my measure. I think the gospels are full of Christ and the apostles and old testament saints insisting that we base ourselves solidly in this world and as we do we can better understand the heavenly realm. Jesus pointed to the weather to refer to the sign of the times and St. Paul to the earthly temple to refer to the heavenly temple, and so forth.

So I say the disconnnect is that moralists who start with the subjectivity of the human mind are caught in a bind they cannot get out of. They move from Skepticism to Idealism and back to dig an ontological and epistemological hole they cannot get out from.. They don't see the simple truth that our mind was made precisely to know reality around us. And it is trustworthy! Despite the fact we can error in our thinking we can also see reality perfectly clear. And so this idea that science is objective while morality is subjective is a lack of taking into account both the knower and the known. We can talk about one or the other, we can concentrate on either, focus in deeply upon either, but we can never do so in a way we lose our sight of both; that we do realize there is the known AND the knower.

This is why I insist we relate the scientific method to the mind as well as morality. It good to point out that morality is universal and objective because it comes from God, but it is also necessary to point out that our mind comes from God and it is meant to know. We can have and do have certainty of knowledge. Without our ability to be certain doubt and Skepticism reign and so why should we think this lacking in the human mind does not apply to moral reality too?

Anyhow your arguments are good and I concure with them. Keep the faith brother and know that I am with you in trying to get others to see Christ is the way, truth and the life.