Origin of God's Morality.

[bhsmte]

The description of the Big Bang is what the Creation account speaks of. There was a light before there were sun and stars. Whether you acknowledge it as 'evidence' or not.

No, i do not accept that as evidence that points to a god as the cause.

You can though.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You guys, agnostics and atheists, keep asking about evidence...I wonder what evidence you would accept. I believe you'd accept none. You'd simply say "this doesn't prove that" or something like that. As you have with every attempt at showing the existence of God.
I asked if you agreed that there is an absolute obligated to be and do good, you agreed, and I asked what you'd call that, or who, you said you disagree that it's a who, that it's well-being. I asked "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?" and got accused of 20 questions. Then I was asked what I would call it, I said "Conscience", was asked what conscience means, and responded "the voice of God in the soul", and then more elaborately "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." Of course, nobody responded to or, apparently, read that. So I'm still waiting to see if anyone has a beef with the above...I have to go to the doctor, so might not respond until Monday. Sorry.

 

[Davian]

Yeah, I thought you'd go there, just wanted to be sure. This says nothing,

It is not nothing; it substantiates what DH said.

other than that Lemaitre didn't see things the same way as the pope. It's his theological opinion, and it's the pope's theological opinion.

Which one of them was the cosmologist?

The pope's opinion (for it's not dogmatic teaching), might have more weight, but neither was a theologian.

I don't see how it has any 'weight'.

And yet, what the pope says is true.

I gather from this context that by "true", you mean "religious opinion".

People often wonder how God could declare "Let there be light" before there was a sun and stars.

Or, how "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth" when Earth could not be formed until after billions of years of stellar nucleosynthesis.

Are you claiming the Bible to be scientific, or not?

Yet the Big Bang describes an explosion of energy.

No, it doesn't really, and big bang cosmology, as per your wiki quote, is still not about origins.

By the way, the pope didn't say it was a scientific validation of the Catholic faith. He said it was a validation of the Biblical account of creation.

"...when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith..."

Quite a big difference.

Indeed. Different degrees of inaccuracy.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, i do not accept that as evidence that points to a god as the cause.

You can though.

Have a nice day.

 

[bhsmte]

You guys, agnostics and atheists, keep asking about evidence...I wonder what evidence you would accept. I believe you'd accept none. You'd simply say "this doesn't prove that" or something like that. As you have with every attempt at showing the existence of God.
I asked if you agreed that there is an absolute obligated to be and do good, you agreed, and I asked what you'd call that, or who, you said you disagree that it's a who, that it's well-being. I asked "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?" and got accused of 20 questions. Then I was asked what I would call it, I said "Conscience", was asked what conscience means, and responded "the voice of God in the soul", and then more elaborately "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." Of course, nobody responded to or, apparently, read that. So I'm still waiting to see if anyone has a beef with the above...I have to go to the doctor, so might not respond until Monday. Sorry.

Since you havent presented any evidence, this whole post really doesnt matter.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Since you havent presented any evidence, this whole post really doesnt matter.

Since we can't agree on some basic meanings, any evidence presented will be called non-evidence. Until we can reach any commonality at all, you guys lose. I'll wait while you figure out what you believe.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I mean, honestly, what is "God's morality"? Why does God need a morality? If God needed morality, he wouldn't be God.

 

[bhsmte]

Since we can't agree on some basic meanings, any evidence presented will be called non-evidence. Until we can reach any commonality at all, you guys lose. I'll wait while you figure out what you believe.

What i believe, is driven by evidence to support believing something.

If you have evidence to present, no one is stopping you from presenting it, except yourself.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What i believe, is driven by evidence to support believing something.

So is what I believe. We just disagree on what constitutes evidence. So until we can agree on some basics, we really can't discuss anything. My brother civilwarbuff and I have shown this over and over and over. I don't think you have any basis for not believing in God. Care to prove me wrong?

If you have evidence to present, no one is stopping you from presenting it, except yourself.

When we can agree on some basics, we can talk further. I've attempted to get to that, but you guys just want to dilly-dally. I have much more important things to do, so when you decide you want to talk about it, really discuss it, I'm here.

 

[Davian]

You guys, agnostics and atheists, keep asking about evidence...I wonder what evidence you would accept. I believe you'd accept none.

Have you tried presenting what evidence you have in the forum of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis?

I mean, once you have a handle on what is meant by scientifically falsifiable.

You'd simply say "this doesn't prove that" or something like that.

You would need to point out where and why that response would be inaccurate.

As you have with every attempt at showing the existence of God.

The attempts to date have been... weak.

I asked if you agreed that there is an absolute obligated to be and do good, you agreed,

I didn't, as I take issue with the "absolute" descriptor.

and I asked what you'd call that, or who, you said you disagree that it's a who, that it's well-being. I asked "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?" and got accused of 20 questions. Then I was asked what I would call it, I said "Conscience", was asked what conscience means, and responded "the voice of God in the soul", and then more elaborately "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." Of course, nobody responded to or, apparently, read that. So I'm still waiting to see if anyone has a beef with the above...

I see it all as simply question begging, if we have naturalistic explanations for "conscience" and "morality", and no testable criteria by which to establish these "moral facts" you allude to.

I have to go to the doctor, so might not respond until Monday. Sorry.

No problem. It'll all be here when you get back.

 

[bhsmte]

So is what I believe. We just disagree on what constitutes evidence. So until we can agree on some basics, we really can't discuss anything. My brother civilwarbuff and I have shown this over and over and over. I don't think you have any basis for not believing in God. Care to prove me wrong?

When we can agree on some basics, we can talk further. I've attempted to get to that, but you guys just want to dilly-dally. I have much more important things to do, so when you decide you want to talk about it, really discuss it, I'm here.

I am not the one claiming aomething exists, that would be you, so the burden is on you.

I am simply saying what you state on these boards does nothing to convince me you are correct, not even close.

And to ask someone else to prove a negative, when you cant meet your own burden, reeks of desperation.

Can you prove me wrong? I was abducted by aliens last night and they told me they created the universe.

 

[Davian]

Since we can't agree on some basic meanings, any evidence presented will be called non-evidence. Until we can reach any commonality at all, you guys lose.

lol. Check the title of this forum. I don't have a pony in this race.

I'll wait while you figure out what you believe.

I do not see how that is relevant.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Yep, your right Jesse....it is the same old game....."give me evidence, that's not good enough"......"give me evidence, that's not good enough". Nothing is ever good enough evidence. Some (maybe most) deny that the Big Bang is the creation of the universe even though both of us have shown that is the common understanding. But they can't tell you what it is. A blind person cannot understand what is written. Matthew 15:14. John 12:40. 2 Corinthians 4:4. 2 Peter 1:9.

 

[Davian]

I mean, honestly, what is "God's morality"? Why does God need a morality? If God needed morality, he wouldn't be God.

Assuming that your "God" exists for the moment:

If <looks in dictionary> morality is a particular system of values and principles of conduct held by a specified person or society, then your god's morality is simply the manner in which it interacts with others (us).

If there is no interaction, then there is no morality, and there is no need to treat your god as if it exists.

If it does [allegedly] interact, then we can compare that interaction to the societal norms that we have already established (it is okay to treat people as property, is it ethical for a judge to preside over their own interests, is it morally bankrupt to hold one responsible for things beyond one's control, etc).

If you meant something else by "morality", feel free to define it.

 

[Davian]

Yep, your right Jesse....it is the same old game....."give me evidence, that's not good enough"......"give me evidence, that's not good enough". Nothing is ever good enough evidence.

Or, more accurately, in the absence of testable criteria, or a falsifiable hypothesis, there is no real means in which to evaluate this "evidence" in a constructive manner.

Some (maybe most) deny that the Big Bang is the creation of the universe even though both of us have shown that is the common understanding.

Except where RoJ quoted wiki.

But they can't tell you what it is.

I do not see where it was claimed that we can do more than speculate.

A blind person cannot understand what is written.

There are always audiobooks. If you are finding the science behind modern cosmology to be intimidating, I recommend "A Briefer History of Time" written by Stephen Hawking and narrated by Erik Davies. (note "Briefer" rather than the previous book's title of "Brief")

Stephen Hawking's worldwide best seller, A Brief History of Time, has been a landmark volume in scientific writing. Its author's engaging voice is one reason, and the compelling subjects he addresses is another: the nature of space and time, the role of God in creation, and the history and future of the universe. But it is also true that in the years since its publication, readers have repeatedly told Professor Hawking of their great difficulty in understanding some of the book's most important concepts. This is the origin of and the reason for A Briefer History of Time: its author's wish to make its content more accessible, as well as to bring it up-to-date with the latest scientific observations and findings.

Although this audiobook is literally somewhat "briefer", it actually expands on the great subjects of the original. Purely technical concepts, such as the mathematics of chaotic boundary conditions, are gone. Conversely, subjects of wide interest that were difficult to follow because they were interspersed throughout the production have now been given entire chapters of their own, including relativity, curved space, and quantum theory. This reorganization has allowed the authors to expand areas of special interest and recent progress, from the latest developments in string theory to exciting developments in the search for a complete, unified theory of all the forces of physics.
Like prior editions, but even more so, A Briefer History of Time will guide non-scientists everywhere in the ongoing search for the tantalizing secrets at the heart of time and space.

link

 

[civilwarbuff]

I will have to get the Briefer. My edition of "Brief" predates that by several years.

 

[Davian]

...

Can you prove me wrong? I was abducted by aliens last night and they told me they created the universe.

I'm glad you made it back safely. There is nothing like getting information right from the source.

 

[anonymous person]

You don't?



His statement read like a definition of the argument from ignorance, yes.



Ok.



The evidence of how succesfull the "right way" is.
And, you know.... logic.

Do you disagree? Do you think arguments from ignorance are a good way to argue? Do you think they lead to reasonable arguments and conclusions?

I asked you what made you think your reasoning was right and you said, because it is successful.

Implicit in the idea of successfulness, or utility, is correspondence with reality.

All you have done is begged the question that your reasoning is right. You, who like to point out fallacies in reasoning, have committed one yourself.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Can you prove me wrong? I was abducted by aliens last night and they told me they created the universe.

Did you ask who created them?

 

[Davian]

...
Nope. God don't need no special pleadin'.

You invoke special pleading each time you declare your particular god except from the requirement you place on everything else (causality, design, etc).

But he loves you so much that he allows you to believe what you want.

... while standing by with an eternal metaphorical flame-thrower pointed at my head should I choose wrongly (the inability to consciously choose what one believes notwithstanding).

Unless you meant something else by the word "love".