Origin of God's Morality.

[DogmaHunter]

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

The problem is that your "evidence" could be used by any religion.

It could, in fact, be used for any and all unfalsifiable ideas that postulate any kind of "beginning".

See, because the thing is that you simply assert the causal relationship between the universe and your deity of choice. And you do that in unfalsifiable ways.
In order to have evidence, you'ld have to actually try and demonstrate/explain this relationship, instead of just asserting it. And you'ld have to do it in such a way that it can be independently and objectively verified.

Otherwise, it is meaningless. This don't support your ideas, just because you say so.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Obviously.

All you have done is begged the question that your reasoning is right.

Not at all.
The succesfullness of "correct" reasoning is evidence of its correspondence with reality.

I like reasoning to correspond to reality.
I think it's the whole point of reasoning...... Don't you?

You, who like to point out fallacies in reasoning, have committed one yourself.

No.

You, on the other hand, are trying to argue with silly Sye Ten tricks.
Presupositional nonsense...

"you use your reasoning to validate your reasoning, it's circular".

Right?

This off course, ignores that reasoning is testable.
When you reason your way to some conclusion about the world, you can come up with tests to see if your conclusion is correct.

That's how your computer was build.

There's no "begging the question" here. Quite the opposite.

 

[Hawkins]

The problem is that your "evidence" could be used by any religion.

Since when another religion has direct witnesses martyred themselves for what is said?

Since when another religion has a Holy Bible which is reconcilable back to 2000 years ago?

 

[Hawkins]

It says in Genesis that man became like God in the sense we both know good and evil. My question is how did God determine what is "good" and what is "evil." The question I guess would be if God didn't create evil, then what is the origin of evil? Some say Satan is responsible, but did he actually create evil, or did he just embrace something that already existed? If God is infinite and He stays the same yesterday, today and forever then we could reason that God has at the very least always known of the potential for evil since it is directly opposite to His nature. Freewill doesn't really have much meaning unless there is the potential to choose in opposition to something, or someone. I guess the real question would be how was the character of God determined and what factors were involved.

Good and evil are purely in terms of God's nature itself. Good is thus the nature of God, evil is what opposes His nature.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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

Because it does, when you understand that it's not a science book.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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

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.

When Genesis was written, though, they described what happened in a way that is poetic, not scientific. Anyone who believes that any book of the Bible imparts science, I'd have to say, is wrong, in my opinion. The question in the Bible isn't about how it all took place, it's that it took place. As for the details you think you find in the Bible, I don't know them. I do believe there was a world-wide flood, it could have been caused by a meteor crashing into the earth, or some other way. I know there are people who believe in YE Creationism, and I (and most Catholics) disagree. But if you're pitting the extreme views of some Christians to say "that isn't God", you're using the worst example.

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

It's not a science textbook.

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

The Bible doesn't tell us how the heavens go, it tells us how to get to heaven, which Jesus further defined as helping those less fortunate than you.

Will there ever be an end to these excuses?

You're the one making excuses. I understand your concerns regarding a 6000 year old earth, but most Christians don't believe that. Why not compare your beliefs to what most Christians believe, instead of what some extreme fundamentalists believe? There is no dichotomy between Christianity and science, except to some, a very small minority.

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

Whatever. If you want to dialog with extreme fundamentalist Christians, go ahead. I am an orthodox Catholic, and my Church never taught that the earth is 6000 years old.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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?

I believe all those things. There was a literal Adam and Eve, and there was a flood. You, yourself admitted such. I don't believe the days in Genesis 1 are literal days. Genesis 1 and 2 uses figurative language to describe an event that took a long time to happen.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

I have no problem beliveing in some form of evolution, but I don't believe Darwin got it right.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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

Don't you know that Wiki is full of errors? Lemaitre had an opinion he presented to the Pope, the Pope chose not to agree with him. So what?

 

[Root of Jesse]

The problem is that your "evidence" could be used by any religion.

You know, that's true, and the Catholic Church believes that all religions have some Truth. We believe that only the Catholic Church has all the Truth.

It could, in fact, be used for any and all unfalsifiable ideas that postulate any kind of "beginning".

The Bible is not a science book. We leave science to scientists. Many of them Catholic, in fact. Galileo was devoutly Catholic, too.

See, because the thing is that you simply assert the causal relationship between the universe and your deity of choice. And you do that in unfalsifiable ways.
In order to have evidence, you'ld have to actually try and demonstrate/explain this relationship, instead of just asserting it. And you'ld have to do it in such a way that it can be independently and objectively verified.

Otherwise, it is meaningless. This don't support your ideas, just because you say so.

 

[Davian]

When Genesis was written, though, they described what happened in a way that is poetic, not scientific.

I do not see that as a dichotomy. Do you mean fictional vs non-fiction?

Anyone who believes that any book of the Bible imparts science, I'd have to say, is wrong, in my opinion.

You have just waved a red flag a large number of your fellow Christians currently engaged in discussion in the Physical and Life Sciences forum.

The question in the Bible isn't about how it all took place, it's that it took place. As for the details you think you find in the Bible, I don't know them.

In what way do you feel it is inaccurate?

I do believe there was a world-wide flood, it could have been caused by a meteor crashing into the earth, or some other way.

Tricky for Noah to navigate his big boat through all of that.

I know there are people who believe in YE Creationism, and I (and most Catholics) disagree. But if you're pitting the extreme views of some Christians to say "that isn't God", you're using the worst example.

What of the balance of my description?

It's not a science textbook.

What kind of book is it?

The Bible doesn't tell us how the heavens go, it tells us how to get to heaven, which Jesus further defined as helping those less fortunate than you.

Sure. Do you concede that I have a basis for not believing in "God"?

You're the one making excuses.

Not at all. "I am not convinced" requires no defence.

I understand your concerns regarding a 6000 year old earth, but most Christians don't believe that. Why not compare your beliefs to what most Christians believe, instead of what some extreme fundamentalists believe?

I have little idea what "most Christians" believe. We could just stick with what you believe, for now.

There is no dichotomy between Christianity and science, except to some, a very small minority.

I do not know what you mean by "Christianity" in this context. Are you saying that you require less of science to be wildly inaccurate than most?

Whatever. If you want to dialog with extreme fundamentalist Christians, go ahead. I am an orthodox Catholic, and my Church never taught that the earth is 6000 years old.

Funny that you mention the age of the universe three times but do not address the balance of the description.

By "really discuss it (your theology)", are we to abandon scientific methodology as a means of exploring the veracity of your religious claims?

 

[Davian]

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?

I believe all those things. There was a literal Adam and Eve,

That would incompatible with most of mainstream biological sciences.

and there was a flood.

And that would take out the physical and geological sciences.

You, yourself admitted such.

Where exactly did I do that?

I don't believe the days in Genesis 1 are literal days. Genesis 1 and 2 uses figurative language to describe an event that took a long time to happen.

In my post I alluded to the process of life beginning some 3.8 billion years ago. Is that what you meant by "a long time to happen"?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because it does, when you understand that it's not a science book.

Except for the parts where it clearly doesn't.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe all those things. There was a literal Adam and Eve, and there was a flood.

Despite your assertion that the Bible is not a "science book," these claims concern matters of fact in biology and geology, and they are amenable to scientific investigation. How do these claims fare when considered in light of what is currently known in those disciplines?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Since when another religion has direct witnesses martyred themselves for what is said?

Every religion has unique aspects that aren't shared in other religions.
Not that claims of direct witness or martyrdom are unique to christianity, off course...

Since when another religion has a Holy Bible which is reconcilable back to 2000 years ago?

Hinduism.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have no problem beliveing in some form of evolution, but I don't believe Darwin got it right.

Darwin got Natural Selection right.
Darwin didn't know about DNA, so he got a lot of things wrong as well.

We've come a long way since then.

But I have a feeling that you don't actually care about what exactly Darwin got right or wrong... I think you simply associate the name "Darwin" with something bad or evil or whatever. I think you simply cringe at the sound of the name, and that you don't actually care about the ideas / models he put forward.

Amirite?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Don't you know that Wiki is full of errors? Lemaitre had an opinion he presented to the Pope, the Pope chose not to agree with him. So what?

Denial.

The references are at the bottom of the page, for your convenience to double check the information in the article.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I do not see that as a dichotomy. Do you mean fictional vs non-fiction?

Nope.

You have just waved a red flag a large number of your fellow Christians currently engaged in discussion in the Physical and Life Sciences forum.

So be it.

In what way do you feel it is inaccurate?

I don't think it is inaccurate. I think it's not a science book.

Tricky for Noah to navigate his big boat through all of that.

Could have been.

What of the balance of my description?

I disagree with it.

What kind of book is it?

Epic poetry. Poetry that tells a history, like Illiad or Aeneid

Sure. Do you concede that I have a basis for not believing in "God"?

I concede that you believe you have a basis.

Not at all. "I am not convinced" requires no defence.

Neither does "I believe in God".

I have little idea what "most Christians" believe. We could just stick with what you believe, for now.

Your characterization of what Christians believe proves that. Most Christians believe that neither Genesis nor Science is wrong.

I do not know what you mean by "Christianity" in this context. Are you saying that you require less of science to be wildly inaccurate than most?

"Christianity" meaning your crusade against "religion." I believe Christianity is right and accurate in what its subject matter is, and science is right and accurate, much of the time, in what its subject matter is.

Funny that you mention the age of the universe three times but do not address the balance of the description.

That seems to be your primary sticking point with the Bible, that Genesis is a fairy tale because some people claim that the earth is only 6000 years old based on the 'chronology' in Genesis.

By "really discuss it (your theology)", are we to abandon scientific methodology as a means of exploring the veracity of your religious claims?

I don't need scientific methodology to discuss religion, and I don't need religion to discus science. Theology is one thing, science is another. The only point at which they meet, to me, is that without God, there is no science.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Neither does "I believe in God".

For the record, you didn't just say "I believe in God." You said that you are justified in believing and that it would be irrational not to believe. That doesn't require a defence?

I have lots of justification, all of which is very rational. In fact, I believe it's IRrational not to believe it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That would incompatible with most of mainstream biological sciences.

Again, you're conflating science and religion. Science does what science does (explain how things work), religion does what religion does (explain why we should be good to one another).

And that would take out the physical and geological sciences.

Himalayan sea salt.

Where exactly did I do that?

You said something about a flood happening some time in the billions of years. I'm not going to go looking for it.

In my post I alluded to the process of life beginning some 3.8 billion years ago. Is that what you meant by "a long time to happen"?

Yes.