Origin of God's Morality.

[bhsmte]

Starting from the question " do you believe everyone in the world knows, deep down, that he is absolutely obligated to be and do good? Yes or no.

Lets back up, who is he?

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

Faith is not scientific, therefore it falls out of the realm of "scientifically" anything.

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

The attempts to date have been... weak.

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

If you take issue with it, how would you modify the statement?

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.

Again, if we can't agree on some basics, we can't get further into it. Sorry. My belief system is believed, in the most fundamental parts of it, by 2/3 of the world. But Christianity is fundamentally different because everything that happened in Jesus life was in public. It wasn't one person having a dream claiming to have heard from God and spreading the word. It was one person doing public things and the people he affected spreading the word. And then people arguing over what it meant.

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

 

[Root of Jesse]

Lets back up, who is he?

Everyone in the world.

 

[Davian]

What do you mean by falsifiable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

I will confess that when I joined this site five years ago I did not have a firm grasp on this concept.

and why does evidence need to be?

More accurately, the hypothesis that the evidence is presented in should be falsifiable. Why? It makes for more accurate scientific methodologies, when compared to positivism/verificationism.

Hawking isn't always right.

In his field it is about degrees of accuracy.

His problem is that he discounts God completely.

As you (ironically) alluded to earlier in this thread, (scientifically) God is the very definition of no significance. It has no explanatory power, particularly in the light of more parsimonious explanations.

 

[Davian]

I don't have any requirements on anything. That's where you're wrong.

Post #681, RoJ:
"I have these :

1. ...
2. The Argument from Efficient Causality
3. ...

But everyone in the world knows, deep down, that he is absolutely obligated to be and do good.

Why then do we have individuals described as sociopaths? Do you claim to be able to read their minds?

Wonder where that comes from???

In evolutionary terms, I understand it to be an evolved trait, behaviour that emerges in a social, cooperative species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

This allows for individuals to fall outside of the 'norm'.

I don't do that. I could really care less whether you choose rightly or wrongly, unless it directly affects me.

My comment was directed not at you, but at the alleged behaviour of your hypothetical deity: "Believe, or else".

You're absolutely free to choose what you believe, too. That's called free will, and everyone has it.

I am not sure of what you mean by "free will" in this context, and you did not address the [inability] of one to consciously choose what one believes. You still have your hypothetical god holding one responsible for things beyond their control.

What do you believe is meant by the word "love"?

I am happy with the dictionary's "an intense feeling of deep affection"; for me that generally rules out torturing those I love for reasons beyond their control.

How do you define the word for yourself?

 

[bhsmte]

Starting from the question " do you believe everyone in the world knows, deep down, that he is absolutely obligated to be and do good? Yes or no.

We have evolved to be social beings and humans do best in social environments. This involves, getting along with others and also, being accepted and respected by others, which helps to boost our psyche.

Out side those folks who have serious psychological disorders, we all have a conscience that is impacted by many variables and again, we have a desire to be part of a social environment, which means getting along and helping others.

 

[Davian]

Faith is not scientific, therefore it falls out of the realm of "scientifically" anything.

Indeed. Explain to me why I should consider it of any significance, beyond a [fallacious] appeal to popularity.

If you take issue with it, how would you modify the statement?

I would replace "absolute" with "generally".

Again, if we can't agree on some basics, we can't get further into it. Sorry.

Same if you are going to invoke special pleading. I am not using standards any different than I would be if exploring the existence of Bigfoot, extraterrestrial aliens visiting Earth, or a tenth planet in our solar system.

My belief system is believed, in the most fundamental parts of it, by 2/3 of the world.

That would be a [fallacious] appeal to popularity. What you are offering could be evidence of a common trait of humans to have the ability for self-deception. This would be comport with the religionists inability to demonstrate the existence of their god(s), and falsifiable in the event that an actual god is shown to exist that comports with a particular religion. That would only work (and has yet to) for one religion, though.

But Christianity is fundamentally different because everything that happened in Jesus life was in public.

According to the stories of him, anyway. If he actually existed.

It wasn't one person having a dream claiming to have heard from God and spreading the word. It was one person doing public things and the people he affected spreading the word.

Or is was a complete fabrication. Or the "Jesus" character is actually composite of several apocalyptic preachers rolled into one.

And then people arguing over what it meant.

Resulting in everything from Christian atheism to pantheism/panentheism, and thousands of variations in between.

"Christian atheism is a theological position in which the belief in the God of Christianity is rejected or absent but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed."

Christian atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The apostle Paul quotes a pantheist poem about Zeus in Acts 17:28, turning it into a panentheist statement about their "unknown God" when he quotes, "'In him we live and move and have our being' as some of your poets have said."

Panentheism is also a feature of some later Christian thought, particularly in mystical Orthodox Christianity, Catholic philosophy, and process theology. In order to avoid confusion with pantheism some panentheists now use the doublet "unitheism.""

Panentheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Guess your mom told you it was bedtime.....anyway, I am tired of you so on to ignore you go.....

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Your attempts in this thread have been meagre, despite your bluster.

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.

I wasn't aware that you expected anyone to respond to that, as it didn't seem to resemble an argument at all. How does that lead you to conclude that Yahweh exists?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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?

Considering what has been presented so far, we have no good reason to believe.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your evidence is not good enuff, need evidence......

Oh the irony...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

What about the parts of Genesis that do not align with our current understanding in cosmology?

 

[Root of Jesse]

What about the parts of Genesis that do not align with our current understanding in cosmology?

Genesis is not a science book, therefore doesn't present a scientific explanation.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Genesis is not a science book, therefore doesn't present a scientific explanation.

Then why did you try to show that it aligned with our scientific understanding?

 

[bhsmte]

Genesis is not a science book, therefore doesn't present a scientific explanation.

That's for sure.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Full Definition of system

1. 1: a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole <a number system>: asa (1) : a group of interacting bodies under the influence of related forces <a gravitationalsystem> (2) : an assemblage of substances that is in or tends to equilibrium <a thermodynamic system>b (1) : a group of body organs that together perform one or more vital functions <the digestive system> (2) : the body considered as a functional unitc : a group of related natural objects or forces <a river system>d : a group of devices or artificial objects or an organization forming a network especially for distributing something or serving a common purpose <a telephone system> <a heatingsystem> <a highway system> <a computer system>e : a major division of rocks usually larger than a series and including all formed during a period or eraf : a form of social, economic, or political organization or practice <the capitalist system>
   
   
2. 2: an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic whole <the Newtonian system of mechanics>
   
   
3. 3a : an organized or established procedure <the touch system of typing>b : a manner of classifying, symbolizing, or schematizing <a taxonomic system> <the decimal system>
   
   
4. 4: harmonious arrangement or pattern : order <bring system out of confusion — Ellen Glasgow>
   
   
5. 5: an organized society or social situation regarded as stultifying or oppressive : establishment 2 —usually used with the

Show me a system by the definition above, that's not designed.

Notice that the definition does not entail design? It allows for some systems to be designed, but does not specify design as an essential criterion.

On that topic, notice that the definition distinguishes between 1c and 1d, making explicit what I have been saying all along. Notice also that 1a and 1b don't define a system as "something designed," which is how you are defining the term, at least in this discussion.

 

[Davian]

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.

Ironically, yes. without presenting your assertions evidence in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, there remains no practical means of evaluating it.

I don't think you have any basis for not believing in God. Care to prove me wrong?

I would describe my theological position as ignostic.

"Ignosticism is the view that the question of whether or not God exists is inherently meaningless until ultimately defined. And if defined, is it falsifiable? It takes the firm stand in saying that; I refuse to take a position until ‘god’ is properly and positively defined. The reason for this ignosticism position, is because in some religious debates the topic and definition god is intentionally left vague because if you define the essence of this divine religious deity then it is possible to prove falsifiability or nonexistence. And when not empirically defined, this is were ignosticism falls back into it original state; that since God cannot be defined then we cannot even discuss the issue when the descriptive definition of a celestial being by the believer is not given."

https://bittersweetend.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/the-ignosticism-position/

For the purposes of discussing theology in this thread, I use the definition I posted earlier, that the word "God" refers a character in the Bible, that [allegedly] walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with using a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing.

Now for that character to exist in reality, it would require tossing virtually all of modern scientific knowledge.

While belief is not subject to conscious choice, I would consider the above to be a basis for not believing in that "God".

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.

Will there ever be an end to these excuses?

I have much more important things to do, so when you decide you want to talk about it, really discuss it, I'm here.

By "really discuss it", do you mean "lower the evidential bar enough for 'God' to get over it"?

 

[Davian]

Genesis is not a science book, therefore doesn't present a scientific explanation.

What are you implying by this? That you personally allow for initial expansion of the universe, the billions of years required for the formation of the heavier elements, then our solar system, followed by the eventual cooling of our planet that permitted the process of life to begin some 3.8 billion years ago? Common descent? No literal Adam and Eve? No biblical/global flood?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What does it say that's believable and provable?

That descent with modification followed by a quest to survive and reproduce while in fierce competition with other individuals, leads to the accumulation of adaptive changes over generations based on mostly environmental conditions, which in turn -and in time- leads to diversification of species and speciation.

You know.... evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Got a link to that?

Sure.

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[19][20] When Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He persuaded the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[21] While a devout Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion,[22] though he also was of the opinion that these two fields of human experience were not in conflict.[23]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître