Origin of God's Morality.

[Root of Jesse]

Given that I know what the message means, I would think it likely that someone had written it there, and presumably they were seeking help.

Well, when I look at the island, I don't see anything random about it either. I see design in everything, just as you would believe that SOS was written by someone seeking help. See, if a Himalayan sherpa happened on the same beach, he wouldn't know what the message meant, necessarily, but he would probably know that someone did it.
I see design in the universe. As I've explained before, if everything didn't happen just the way it did, there would be no support for life. A variance in temperature of a trillionth of a degree one way or the other, and no carbon. There are trillions and trillions of possible universes, and only one of them could support human life: this one. It was designed this way, and we call that designer God. You can call Him Alice, if you want, but it's all about definitions-it's God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I see design in the universe.

I don't.

As I've explained before, if everything didn't happen just the way it did, there would be no support for life. A variance in temperature of a trillionth of a degree one way or the other, and no carbon. There are trillions and trillions of possible universes, and only one of them could support human life: this one. It was designed this way, and we call that designer God. You can call Him Alice, if you want, but it's all about definitions-it's God.

This is just another way of saying, "If things were different, they'd be different." Well, yeah. That doesn't mean things were designed to be that way.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I already addressed this. Were you not paying attention?

You picked a kind of extreme example. What, exactly is well-being, generally? Is it happiness? Does it mean you have enough food and a roof over your head? What is happiness, generally speaking?
I ask this because I know lots of people who have different ideas of what makes them happy. Some say sports, some say doing a job well, some say money. Is it a pleasure principal? If your being pleased, is that equal to happiness?

(see, now you get dialog. sorry if I missed your answer.)

 

[Root of Jesse]

I don't.

This is just another way of saying, "If things were different, they'd be different." Well, yeah. That doesn't mean things were designed to be that way.

So then there's no need for design? Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys...It was written by someone. The universe was also written by someone. Designed.
When the first moon rocket took off from Cape Canaveral, two U.S. scientists stood watching it, side by side. One was a believer, the other an unbeliever. The believer said, "Isn't it wonderful that our rocket is going to hit the moon by chance?" The unbeliever objected, "What do you mean, chance? We put millions of manhours of design into that rocket." "Oh," said the believer, "you don't think chance is a good explanation for the rocket? Then why do you think it's a good explanation for the universe? There's much more design in a universe than in a rocket. We can design a rocket, but we couldn't design a whole universe. I wonder who can?" Later that day the two were strolling down a street and passed an antique store. The atheist admired a picture in the window and asked, "I wonder who painted that picture?" "No one," joked the believer; "it just happened by chance."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You picked a kind of extreme example. What, exactly is well-being, generally? Is it happiness? Does it mean you have enough food and a roof over your head? What is happiness, generally speaking?
I ask this because I know lots of people who have different ideas of what makes them happy. Some say sports, some say doing a job well, some say money. Is it a pleasure principal? If your being pleased, is that equal to happiness?

(see, now you get dialog. sorry if I missed your answer.)

Is this series of twenty questions actually meant to lead somewhere? Because it seems to me that what you are doing is avoiding answering the implicit question put to you: do you have a case to present or not? Your answer to that question doesn't depend on my ethics or meta-ethics. So far, your excuse has been that I haven't answered your question. That turned out to be false. I did answer it. Now, instead of actually presenting your case, you've posed another question. This isn't a dialogue at all. In a dialogue, the other party also has the opportunity to ask questions.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So then there's no need for design? Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys...It was written by someone. The universe was also written by someone. Designed.

Where is the evidence of that?

When the first moon rocket took off from Cape Canaveral, two U.S. scientists stood watching it, side by side. One was a believer, the other an unbeliever. The believer said, "Isn't it wonderful that our rocket is going to hit the moon by chance?" The unbeliever objected, "What do you mean, chance? We put millions of manhours of design into that rocket." "Oh," said the believer, "you don't think chance is a good explanation for the rocket? Then why do you think it's a good explanation for the universe? There's much more design in a universe than in a rocket. We can design a rocket, but we couldn't design a whole universe. I wonder who can?" Later that day the two were strolling down a street and passed an antique store. The atheist admired a picture in the window and asked, "I wonder who painted that picture?" "No one," joked the believer; "it just happened by chance."

You are aware that this story is premised on a strawman and a false dichotomy (design vs chance)? I didn't say that "chance is a good explanation for the universe." Atheism is not a position on cosmogony, so being an atheist doesn't commit one to any particular explanation of the universe's origins, much less the one presented here as being "the atheist's view."

 

[Root of Jesse]

Is this series of twenty questions actually meant to lead somewhere? Because it seems to me that what you are doing is avoiding answering the implicit question put to you: do you have a case to present or not? Your answer to that question doesn't depend on my ethics or meta-ethics. So far, your excuse has been that I haven't answered your question. That turned out to be false. I did answer it. Now, instead of actually presenting your case, you've posed another question. This isn't a dialogue at all. In a dialogue, the other party also has the opportunity to ask questions.

I asked you what is well-being, generally, and you call it 20 questions? I told you I'm trying to find common ground on which we can communicate. I also never restricted you from asking questions, but you asked for my evidence of God, and I have to find someplace we can agree on. I know what well-being is for me, I do not know what well-being is for you. That's why I asked "Is it happiness?"
If this is simply entertainment for you, why don't you just go watch television? If this is too much work for you, why bother?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Where is the evidence of that?

You are aware that this story is premised on a strawman and a false dichotomy (design vs chance)? I didn't say that "chance is a good explanation for the universe." Atheism is not a position on cosmogony, so being an atheist doesn't commit one to any particular explanation of the universe's origins, much less the one presented here as being "the atheist's view."

Then what is a good explanation for the universe?

 

[bhsmte]

Then what is a good explanation for the universe?

A good explanation of anything, usually includes objective evidence to support the explanation.

If none is available, the intellectually honest thing to do say is you dont know.

Or, one could say; i believe a certain explanation on faith, but dont have objective evidence to supoort it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then what is a good explanation for the universe?

I already answered this question as well:

What do you mean? Are you asking about how the universe came to be? If that's your question, then I don't know, and from what I am able to discern, no one knows.

We don't know. We're trying to figure it out.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I asked you what is well-being, generally, and you call it 20 questions? I told you I'm trying to find common ground on which we can communicate. I also never restricted you from asking questions, but you asked for my evidence of God, and I have to find someplace we can agree on. I know what well-being is for me, I do not know what well-being is for you. That's why I asked "Is it happiness?"
If this is simply entertainment for you, why don't you just go watch television? If this is too much work for you, why bother?

I asked you previously whether this was all leading toward some variation of the moral argument, but I received no answer. Because if it is, then you can present that argument without knowing a thing about my ethics/meta-ethics. But since I'm apparently not restricted from asking questions: what do you think determines whether what we do is good or evil?

 

[Root of Jesse]

I asked you previously whether this was all leading toward some variation of the moral argument, but I received no answer. Because if it is, then you can present that argument without knowing a thing about my ethics/meta-ethics. But since I'm apparently not restricted from asking questions: what do you think determines whether what we do is good or evil?

Conscience.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Conscience.

And what is conscience?

 

[Root of Jesse]

I already answered this question as well:

We don't know. We're trying to figure it out.

So you don't know, but it ain't God. I'd say it is God. Everything in existence requires design, nothing happens randomly. We call the designer God.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And what is conscience?

The voice of God in the soul.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And what is conscience?

The traditional meaning in Catholic theology is the knowledge of what is right and wrong: intellect applied to morality. The meaning of conscience in the argument is knowledge and not just a feeling; but it is intuitive knowledge rather than rational or analytical knowledge, and it is first of all the knowledge that I must always do right and never wrong, the knowledge of my absolute obligation to goodness, all goodness: justice and charity and virtue and holiness; only in the second place is it the knowledge of which things are right and which things are wrong. This second-place knowledge is a knowledge of moral facts, while the first-place knowledge is a knowledge of my personal moral obligation, a knowledge of the moral law itself and its binding authority over my life.

 

[bhsmte]

So you don't know, but it ain't God. I'd say it is God. Everything in existence requires design, nothing happens randomly. We call the designer God.

I will ask again;

Do you have objective verifiable evidence to show god as the designer, or is this purely a faith belief?

 

[civilwarbuff]

So then there's no need for design? Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys...It was written by someone. The universe was also written by someone. Designed.

Then add to that of trying to pick out which monkey will write Hamlet.....

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So you don't know, but it ain't God. I'd say it is God. Everything in existence requires design, nothing happens randomly. We call the designer God.

You need to support this assertion and, again, note the false dichotomy (design vs randomness).

 

[Root of Jesse]

A good explanation of anything, usually includes objective evidence to support the explanation.

There's really no such thing as objective evidence. This is proven by the arguments for and against anthropomorphic global warming.

If none is available, the intellectually honest thing to do say is you dont know.

But we do have evidence. I've shown where you don't just say that anything is random, which says that everything is designed, and yet you throw up your hands and say the universe is random? Oh, I do understand that maybe you don't thing God is a white-haired bearded guy in the sky, but while that may be his depiction in art, that's not what He is. I really don't care what you call him.

Or, one could say; i believe a certain explanation on faith, but dont have objective evidence to supoort it.

I do believe we have evidence, you just disagree. Shrug.