Where's God?

[InterestedAtheist]

You cannot make up rights out of thin air, that is what Hitler did. I would hope you dont want to go down that road.

This is the second time you've compared us to Hitler.
Perhaps you weren't aware of this, but...well, if this argument were presented to him, you'd find Hitler was firmly on your side, not ours.
Or, to put it another way: strictly with regards to homosexuality, you're agreeing with Hitler.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: These come from Christ's example He never forced anyone to convert and neither did His disciples.

cw: If you believe what Jesus says that is not a free choice. I would pretend to worship and love Jesus if I knew if I did not I would be eternally tortured.

But many people dont believe what He says. If an evangelist implied that you could pretend to worship and love Jesus and avoid hell, he would be lying. But nevertheless, the disciples never threatened anyone to convert using worldly weapons and force. In fact, Jesus showed love and respect to those who rejected His message like Pontius Pilate. This is all obviously a free choice. Just because someone tells you that if you make the wrong choice you could face serious consequences does not take away your free choice to reject the the advice.

ed: This is covered by You shall not steal, because they are basically confiscating your house.

cw: This is not the reason the 3rd amendment was written. This is ridiculous.

You are right, not exactly. The reason was written is because it is stealing to forcibly occupy a house. This is also covered under the biblical teaching regarding owning private property.

ed: No, see my earlier posts where I demonstrated only voluntary servitude is allowed except for POWs and criminals.

cw: No, I provided ALL the verse about slavery you only cherry pick the ones that support this position. You are demonstrably wrong here.

No, I responded to all your quotes and demonstrated how you were taking them out of context.

ed: I agree. Though you might could make an argument that when the church elders and deacons were elected, they were freely chosen. The founders may have used that idea.

cw; Until you can remove the word "may" from your statement, I do not believe this is the case.

Well we do know for a fact that the most referenced book in the Founders letters while forming this nation was the Bible. And even the non biblical sources were mostly Christian scholars like John Locke to name one.

ed: The Founders believed they did because they knew that other wise they did not have a rational and objective foundation and therefore could be more easily taken away by debate. But if they could show that it was rational that they came from the Creator the government would be less likely to take them away. I never said that ALL of the rights in the Bill of Rights come from the bible but the most important and foundational ones do.

cw: You actually did say they all came form God but no matter.

Where?

ed: You make a lot of assertions without backing them up with any evidence. Can you back this assertion up?

Yes, because Jefferson was a philosopher. He said "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"

cw: Also, I want to point out that our current law is not based solely on what the founders thought. It is based on what they wrote down. The DOI as I have provided evidence for is not binding law and we base our current law on precedent as well.

Yes, the DOI is considered part of the US Legal Code as I referenced earlier.

cw: Would you like to live in a country where all the laws were based on Muslim ideas?

No, because most Muslim ideas are evil.

 

[FireDragon76]

But many people dont believe what He says. If an evangelist implied that you could pretend to worship and love Jesus and avoid hell, he would be lying. But nevertheless, the disciples never threatened anyone to convert using worldly weapons and force. In fact, Jesus showed love and respect to those who rejected His message like Pontius Pilate. This is all obviously a free choice. Just because someone tells you that if you make the wrong choice you could face serious consequences does not take away your free choice to reject the the advice.


You are right, not exactly. The reason was written is because it is stealing to forcibly occupy a house. This is also covered under the biblical teaching regarding owning private property.


No, I responded to all your quotes and demonstrated how you were taking them out of context.


Well we do know for a fact that the most referenced book in the Founders letters while forming this nation was the Bible. And even the non biblical sources were mostly Christian scholars like John Locke to name one.

"Love me... or else" is not a loving message in the least.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is the second time you've compared us to Hitler.
Perhaps you weren't aware of this, but...well, if this argument were presented to him, you'd find Hitler was firmly on your side, not ours.
Or, to put it another way: strictly with regards to homosexuality, you're agreeing with Hitler.

Indeed. Hitler tore down the tolerance and open-mindedness of the Weimar Republic in favor of retrograde values.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed:We dont know for certain, but given that is the kind of universe we live in and that is the kind of God that probably exists, then it is the most rational answer.

cw: You need to support your assertion that a God probably exists.

Most of the evidence points to the universe having a beginning, ie the BB theory, which means it is an effect. Therefore it needs a cause. Since the universe contains personal beings and purposes, we know that only persons can produce the personal. Therefore, the cause must be a person. in addition, according to the law of logic the cause must be "outside" or transcendent to the effect, just like the Christian God.

ed: Many people think that because it is ultimately meaningless then why care about others, why not just have as much pleasure as you can until you die? Since it is meaningless you have no rational basis for condemning or trying to change someone that thinks like that.

cw: I know of almost no one that does not care about anyone else.

That is because most atheists do not live consistent with their worldview especially in nations influenced by Chrstianity. But leaders of some nations have, like the Soviet Union and some nonChristian nations have like Communist China. But that is why they are hell holes.

cw: Also, I do have a rational justification for thinking that way of living is wrong. But thanks for telling me what I believe again.

I doubt you have an objectively rational justification. What is your rational justification?

ed: How do you know?

cw: How do I know what? If suffering is part of Gods plan or that God is immoral?

That God is immoral.

ed: I did, unless it got deleted by the moderator. He deleted several of my posts. Not sure exactly why.

cw: You did after I reminded you. I am not accusing you of anything. It was just a reminder.

Ok.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Most of the evidence points to the universe having a beginning, ie the BB theory, which means it is an effect. Therefore it needs a cause.

Something like quantum mechanics or a larger multiverse that creates universes? Have you considered those possibilities?

Since the universe contains personal beings and purposes, we know that only persons can produce the personal. Therefore, the cause must be a person.

You made this claim before. I refuted it. Remember? To reiterate, I explained to you that there is another possible causes for the existence of persons, that is, evolution. You said evolution was impossible. I asked you how you knew that. You said that nobody physically saw all of human evolution happen. That was the only reason you came up with for denying evolution. I explained the obvious to you, that nobody has lived 2 million years, so therefore it was impossible for any one person to have seen it all. Somehow you equate "no one person has seen it all" to "therefore it is impossible". That is a silly argument. Take away that silly argument, and so far you have offered nothing to validate your claim.

And then you come back and repeat the claim that had been thoroughly refuted.

[shaking my head in sorrow]

in addition, according to the law of logic the cause must be "outside" or transcendent to the effect, just like the Christian God.

Do the effects of quantum mechanics count as "outside"? Does a multiverse count as "outside"?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Since the universe contains personal beings and purposes, we know that only persons can produce the personal.

@doubtingmerle has already addressed this, but I'd just like to add: simple and/or small forces create complex and/or great effects all the time. Pebbles falling create avalanches. Trickles of water carve mighty valleys. And evolution turns simple life forms into very complex ones. Your assertion that personal beings can only be produced by personal beings is completely unsubstantiated.

Therefore, the cause must be a person. in addition, according to the law of logic the cause must be "outside" or transcendent to the effect, just like the Christian God.

First, what does it mean for something to be "outside" of the universe? Have we any evidence that such a thing is possible?
Second: you have to prove that a thing exists before you can invoke it as an explanation for something having happened. Of course, the Christian God could have created the universe, because the Christian God possesses universe-creating powers. If He exists, which you have yet to prove.

That is because most atheists do not live consistent with their worldview especially in nations influenced by Chrstianity. But leaders of some nations have, like the Soviet Union and some nonChristian nations have like Communist China. But that is why they are hell holes.

I live in Communist China. It's not a hell hole. The people here generally do not believe in gods, and I have usually found them to be friendly and kind. If you are now going to respond to this by attacking the Chinese government's record of human rights abuses, which I will certainly admit exists, may I point out that (1) this has nothing to do with the character of the common people in general, and (2) many other countries, including the USA, also have such records.
And by the way, let's not get distracted from the main issue. You're saying that atheists, when not influenced by the social benefits of a Christian culture, live consistently with their basic nature and produce hellholes. Anyone who knows atheists knows this is simply nonsense.

 

[Ed1wolf]

↑ed: No, Christ's death took away the death penalty for all crimes except murder.

dm: That's a stretch from what the NT says.

This is confirmed by Paul not recommending the death penalty for incest that occurred in the early Church. Just excommunication. Also, Christ and the woman caught in adultery.

dm: Even if true, how does this eliminate the free speech issue raised by the command in Deuteronomy to kill people who say things the author did not like? When you tell me that Jesus reduced the punishment from "kill them" to something less, that does not negate that the verse is clearly against free speech.

ed: This was only under the Old Covenant because Israel was held to a higher standard.

dm: How can commanding people to kill those who recommend a different religion be a higher standard? That sounds like a lower standard to me.

No, the ancient nation of Israel had to be pure with no other religions and gods so there was generally no mercy for a sin like that. Though not all capital crimes were punished with death if a judge ruled otherwise, read Numbers 35:31. This changed with the coming of Christ, He brought forgiveness and mercy.

 

[Ed1wolf]

↑ed: It says in the first paragraph our station in life is determined by the Laws of Nature and (Laws) of Natures God.

dm: The first paragraph of the DOI says countries are entitled "to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them". It is talking about countries setting themselves up as equal countries to other countries.

My primary point is that the founders acknowledged there is a law above human laws that human laws must conform to.

dm: Where does it say we need to follow a particular book that some say was written by God?

We know what the laws of nature refers to and since Jefferson was a unitarian he believed the moral laws of the bible but not the miracles contained in it. That is what the part of the phrase refers to as the laws of Natures God.

ed: Not exactly.

dm: Uh, actually what I gave you was exact. It was an exact quote of the DOI. It was the pure, unadulterated words of Jefferson. Why do you say it is not exactly?

The DOI says "the people" are entitled to "institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." [emphasis added] Now you want to change the words "to them" into "to God" but that is simply not what Jefferson wrote.

He was just being a little more generic in this paragraph but it doesnt negate that the higher laws of Nature and God are the principles that are most likely to effect their safety and happiness especially since he knew that all the state constitutions at the time were based on Christian principles.

ed: And when a government starts going against Gods principles then it is the right of the people to abolish it and start new government back on the laws and principles that God has given us.

dm: If it seems best to the people to have theocracy, then yes, the DOI encourages them to choose theocracy. But if they want something different, the DOI says they may choose whatever government to them seems best.

See above.

ed: Christ never said kill unbelievers, that was Muhammad.

dm: Ah, but "Moses" did command killing those who teach another religion. I quoted the verses to you.

See my previous post how Israel was held to a higher standard.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, the ancient nation of Israel had to be pure with no other religions and gods so there was generally no mercy for a sin like that. Though not all capital crimes were punished with death if a judge ruled otherwise, read Numbers 35:31. This changed with the coming of Christ, He brought forgiveness and mercy.

Ah, so you think it was a sin to say, "Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;” (Deuteronomy 13:6)

I do not see how you can say it is a sin to recommend another religion in one breath, and then declare that this religion was a leader in promoting free speech in your next breath.

 

[doubtingmerle]

My primary point is that the founders acknowledged there is a law above human laws that human laws must conform to.


We know what the laws of nature refers to and since Jefferson was a unitarian he believed the moral laws of the bible but not the miracles contained in it. That is what the part of the phrase refers to as the laws of Natures God.


He was just being a little more generic in this paragraph but it doesnt negate that the higher laws of Nature and God are the principles that are most likely to effect their safety and happiness especially since he knew that all the state constitutions at the time were based on Christian principles.



See above.


See my previous post how Israel was held to a higher standard.

I'm not sure why you keeping repeating this. The Declaration of Independence clearly comes down on our side, that we are entitled to choose the form of government that seems most likely to us to best effect our safety and happiness. For the record, I will post it again:

...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [emphasis added]
​

You keep making the dubious claim that the first paragraph somehow overrules this. Let's look at it:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.​

And there you find the phrase "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and the word "station". All your argument is centered around the fact that these words exist there. You then go on to give possible definitions of these words that suit your cause, and declare victory. But you totally ignore what either of the first two paragraphs are saying in context.

The first paragraph has nothing to do with needing to obey commands of God. Rather, it says that the laws of nature entitle us to rule ourselves. It is like referring to the laws of motion or the laws of thermodynamics. Jefferson is simply saying the way things work is that people have the right to rule themselves.

But even if we accept your highly dubious argument that "laws of nature's God" means "commands of God" in this context, how would we know God's commands?

If you say that many of the founders thought God's commands were found in the Bible, so what? Nowhere do they say that all future generations must find God's commands the way we do. Nowhere do they say, that, whatever laws they make, every future generation is forced to make the same laws.

If the founders had meant the second paragraph to say people needed government "as to God shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness," they could have said so. Instead they said people are entitled to seek government, "as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Thank you, @doubtingmerle , for setting that out so clearly.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You are moving the goal posts.

You had said

In addition, since we are made in His image, a universe without God could not contain personal beings, because only persons can produce the personal. So your analogy is flawed because universe B could not logically exist. There could be a universe B with lower forms of life but no God, but there could not be a universe with persons and no God. [emphasis added]​

This was your claim, that it was impossible for humans to come into existence without God. When I pointed out to you that there actually is a possible path to create humans without God (evolution), all you can come up with is that nobody personally observed all 2 million years of human evolution. Of course not! Nobody has lived 2 million years.

No, you misunderstood. Humans have existed for about 2 million years and ever since then they have seen that persons produce the personal. No one has empirically observed persons coming into existence by impersonal processes or an impersonal origin.

dm: So how does the fact that nobody has lived 2 million years prove that it is impossible for humans to evolve?

I am not saying it is impossible for humans to evolve. Evolution could just be the process for God to create humans, but ultimately in order to produce personal beings the ultimate cause of the process most likely was a person due to all the empirical observations of that occurring. It is the most rational conclusion. How can the impersonal produce the personal?

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Not exactly, He is the personification of good.

dm: Do you have an answer that does not involve arguing in a circle?

If I ask you what is good, will you tell us it is that which God says? When I ask you where God gets his ideas, will you say he chooses what is good? Is it all one big circle?

What does your morality sit on? It looks to me that it is like a planet that is built on turtles, all the way down.

How is it a circle? I said God is the good. Goodness stops at the objectively existing character of God. There is no turtles all the way down. He gets His moral ideas from His own character.

ed: Yes, but only Christians have a rational objective standard for goodness, you dont. Your morality is based on what makes you feel good.

dm: No, my morality is not based on what makes me feel good. I have wrote extensively about morality in this thread. Care to quote back what I have actually told you?

Sorry I dont recall. But I seem to remember it basically boiled down to empathy for humans. Feelings.

dm: Deuteronomy 13:6-11 is commanding the killing of people who say something the author does not like.

I explained how that no longer applies under the new Covenant.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You are writing this in response to a repeat of a specific question. You had written that sexual abuse is the right outcome for some particular children. That is a horrible, horrible thing to say. It is never the "right outcome" for children that they are in a state of sexual abuse. I wrote and asked for clarification.

Actually right outcome is not the best term to use, it is better understood to be the necessary outcome for some children in order to accomplish Gods purposes to bring about a greater good.

dm: You hedged. So I replied with:

I wrote to you and asked: And thousands of children are sexually abused by adults. And God know that this is the right outcome for that particular person? And you said yes. You specifically stated that sexual abuse was the best outcome for that child. Now You say no. Why did you say yes when you meant no?
​

Which seems to me like this is a very important question for you to answer. Why, when I asked you if you think sexual abuse was the right outcome for some children, did you say yes?

And yet again, when I ask for your clarification, all you can do is say we are commanded not to abuse children.

Again, not only is sexual abuse illegal, it is a horrible thing to happen to children. So why did you write and say that sexual abuse is the right outcome for some children?

See above about the term right outcome. It is better understood as the necessary outcome.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Humans have existed for about 2 million years and ever since then they have seen that persons produce the personal. No one has empirically observed persons coming into existence by impersonal processes or an impersonal origin.

The "humans" that were alive 2 million years ago would not qualify as modern humans. They were more like apemen.

I agree that no one person saw all 4 million years of human evolution. That does not mean it did not happen.

I am not saying it is impossible for humans to evolve. Evolution could just be the process for God to create humans, but ultimately in order to produce personal beings the ultimate cause of the process most likely was a person due to all the empirical observations of that occurring. It is the most rational conclusion. How can the impersonal produce the personal?

Why does the cause of human evolution need to be a person? Why can it not be a combination of natural forces that drives the process? I just so happen to have described that natural process in detail recently at Why are there still apes? .

 

[doubtingmerle]

Actually right outcome is not the best term to use, it is better understood to be the necessary outcome for some children in order to accomplish Gods purposes to bring about a greater good.

Your God stands back while children suffer sexual abuse. Why? You reply that sexual abuse is "the necessary outcome for some children in order to accomplish Gods purposes to bring about a greater good." [emphasis yours]

Again, why cannot an all powerful God figure out a way to accomplish his purposes without allowing these children to suffer horrible sexual abuse?

Are you saying that all children who suffer sexual abuse do it because God is working out a greater good, or just some of them? If your contrived "greater good" argument only applies to some of them, what about all the others that suffer?

 

[Ed1wolf]

You write this in response to my assertion, "Sexual abuse is not good for children."

Everybody knows that sexual abuse is not good for children. It leaves permanent emotional and physical scars. It is demeaning and hurtful. It can lead to death and disease. It is wrong.

So I find it really odd that you think you need to ask me how I know that sexual abuse is not good for children.

Because you have not provided an objective basis for your moral decisions, it appears that your morality is just based on feelings for humans. If I am wrong, please explain why.

dm: Sir, there are thousands of cases of sexual abuse. Saying that maybe God allows it in a certain case because it was the only way to avoid a nuclear war is a very, very odd answer.

First, wouldn't an all powerful God be able to come up with a solution that avoided both the abuse and the nuclear war?

No not necessarily. The biblical definition of omnipotent does not mean that He can do absolutely anything. He cannot go against logic for one thing. And He cannot go against His moral character. And He cannot remove the penalty of death for sin except on Judgement Day. And apparently He cannot destroy evil forever without creating a primarily natural law universe with free will personal beings experiencing spiritual growth. So there may be some limiting factors about avoiding some catastrophic event, that God must allow this abuse to happen to bring about a greater good.

dm: Second, even if allowing the abuse to occur was the only way to avoid nuclear war for one particular case, what about all the other cases of abuse?

Well as I stated above there has to be free will personal beings in this universe in order to destroy evil forever. So there are going to be evil things perpetuated by evil people in this universe. It was inevitable after our ancestors rebelled against God. But their suffering will ultimately bring about the destruction of evil forever and may prevent possibly other things like a nuclear war or other horrific events.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

How is it a circle? I said God is the good. Goodness stops at the objectively existing character of God. There is no turtles all the way down. He gets His moral ideas from His own character.

Actually, the thing that you have described is exactly what circular logic means. What is goodness? The things that God tells us to do. How does we know these are good? Because God told us to do them. "He gets His moral ideas from His own character" simply means that He gets His moral ideas from His moral ideas. Turtles all the way down is exactly what it is.

And quite simply, this reduces the meaning of "good" to "what God says". Your attempt to resolve the Euthyphro Dilemma by declaring goodness to be the intrinsic nature of God's character is a familiar apologetic, but all it does is kick the can down the road, passing the problem on one level without actually addressing it. So, you say, God knows what is good because it is His character. Well, how do we or He know that His character is good? Do we measure it against some external scale, or is it simply good because God says it is? And supposing tomorrow, He declared child rape to be good? You and Doubting Merle seem to agree that it is a bad thing. But if God said it, on what basis could you possibly object? You have said yourself that there is no external standard. God could declare anything to be good, and you would agree. And if God's character were cruel and unjust, then cruelty and injustice would be good, by definition. You can say He'd never do that, but on what grounds? If He did do it, it would be good.

So, when I ask you "how can you know what is good?" you answer "because God tells me." And how do you know that this is good? Because God said so.

You're very fond of telling us what is right or wrong, Ed. But what basis do you have for making any such declarations?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Most of the evidence points to the universe having a beginning, ie the BB theory, which means it is an effect. Therefore it needs a cause. Since the universe contains personal beings and purposes, we know that only persons can produce the personal. Therefore, the cause must be a person. in addition, according to the law of logic the cause must be "outside" or transcendent to the effect, just like the Christian God.

I agree that the universe must have had a beginning and there must be a cause. But you must give evidence to justify your claim that only persons can be the cause. Something that cannot demonstrated to exist cannot the the cause for something.

That is because most atheists do not live consistent with their worldview especially in nations influenced by Chrstianity. But leaders of some nations have, like the Soviet Union and some nonChristian nations have like Communist China. But that is why they are hell holes.

Atheism is not a worldview anymore than lack of belief in Big Foot is a worldview. Communism is a political worldview. These hell holes as you say are not that because they are atheistic, it is because of their ideology. Tell me how a lack of belief in a deity leads to suffering.

I doubt you have an objectively rational justification. What is your rational justification?

You said:

Many people think that because it is ultimately meaningless then why care about others, why not just have as much pleasure as you can until you die? Since it is meaningless you have no rational basis for condemning or trying to change someone that thinks like that.

I can justify it with well being. Most people if you ask them will say unnecessary suffering is bad and should be limited in some way for example. If my moral goal is to maximize well being for all then suffering for no reason is going to be bad. I can justify telling people that they should care about others out of empathy and compassion because you would want them to treat you that way. It benefits us and society when we treat others this way.

That God is immoral.

I know this because I read the bible. If the God as described in the bible exists I believe he is immoral. For starters:
1. Owning others as property is always immoral.
2. Beating slaves is always immoral.
3. Killing almost everyone on the planet with a flood is immoral.
4. Substitution atonement is an immoral concept.
5. Killing people for homosexual behavior is always immoral.
6. Killing someone because they believe in a different god is immoral.
7. On and on...