Where's God?

[InterestedAtheist]

The leaders of atheistic and humanistic nations tend to be evil because they tend to live consistently with their atheistic philosophies because they dont have governmental constraints on them like the common people. Also, because humans are naturally religious many dont go along with their leaders philosophies.

This is just a string of unsubstantiated claims. And to quote a famous atheist, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Communism, fascism, and secular humanism are atheistic philosophies because their laws are based on human thinking, not the laws of God or gods.

In other words, it's just as I said. An atheistic society may have laws based on anything at all. If you are not aware of the enormous gulf between humanists and totalitarians - that is to say, that they are at opposite ends of the spectrum - then you don't know enough about this at the spectrum.

See my explanation above.

No, you see mine, because my explanation is exactly what you need to hear. Here it is again:
t might help if you tried thinking of "theistic philosophy." It doesn't really mean anything, does it? A theist could be a Satanist, a Christian of many different types, a believer in the Greek or Norse or Celtic gods - anything at all, really. If all we knew was that their philosophy was a theistic one, we would still know nothing about it apart from that it included a belief in a god or gods.

Most of what I was referring to regarding China has occurred in the last 30 years.

Does that make it better? The USA is several hundred years old, and has a long history of appalling violations of human rights.
The USA is a great country that has done great things. But if you're going to paint it as a moral exemplar, I feel constrained to point out some of its shameful history - a history, I might add, that my home country of the United Kingdom can match in similar glories and horrors.

The US has not had slaves in 150 years.

Yes, which means that when you said that Christian-based countries were morally superior you have decades of appalling human rights violations - some of the most horrible in the history of the world - to show you wrong.

And genocide was never committed against blacks or even native Americans' in any real sense it was just a series of wars that they mostly lost due to the superior technology of the Americans.

Here - history of US genocide against Native Americans:
https://www.history.com/news/native-americans-genocide-united-states

Not sure what warmongering you are referring to.

Basically, the USA has been at war with one country or another for almost the whole period of its existence as a country.

Locking children in cages in recent times was to protect them from being sex trafficked and locked in jails with their parents and the so called cages had TVs and video games and they could come out and play soccer if they wanted.

Yuck. I feel dirty reading that.

The present US prior to the corona virus had the best economy in the world, among the lowest rates of unemployment for minorities in US history and more freedom than any nation on the planet.

But since the USA elected a corrupt, grifting, con artist, backed by a Republican Party mostly notable for its appalling heartlessness, the USA's economy is in freefall, it's society is falling apart. In contrast, China is handling the crisis remarkably well.

Fraid so, see above.

'Fraid not. You see above. The USA is the hellhole right now. And I very much hope that Biden is elected in November so it can begin dragging itself out of the hellhole that Donald Trump and Republican party, eagerly abetted by American evangelicals, have pushed it in.

Look, I get you don't like being proved wrong, but there comes a point where you just have to say move on. You say that atheism produces hellholes and evil people, and its simply and observably untrue. You're wrong. Deal with it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ok provide an example of overcoming entropy without using living things because that would be assuming what we are trying to prove.
↑

Snowflakes.

Diamonds.

The weather on planets. Stars provides heat energy to the planets, which radiate off energy to space. This creates temperature gradients on the planet, which by definition is a decrease in entropy. This drives wind currents, ocean currents, thunderstorms, and other weather events. All these things start happening spontaneously on uninhabited planets.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You're more than welcome to initiate such a double-blind study and find out for yourself.

That's not how it works. Nobody is going to do a double-blind study if we don't even have a hypothesis about an effect we want to test.

You are the one that claimed that God gives clarity to surgeons. Do you care to form a hypothesis, such as surgeon that do x get more clarity than those who don't? If you cannot form a hypothesis about which surgeons will get more clarity, how can you claim that some clarity of surgeons comes from God?

 

[Halbhh]

All our memories, emotions, and thoughts are a function of the brain. If the brain is dead, it cannot produce these any more.

But what if God made a copy of your brain to live forever? What you would then have is a copy of you, not you.

At this last sentence you got full 'naturalism', which isn't an assumption I take for granted.

Why stop with one copy? He could then make millions of copies of you. Why should you care what happens to all those millions of copies of you?

I find it odd that God would make a living copy of a dead man for no reason but to torture that copy for all eternity. What did the copy do to deserve that? Why not just write that man off as dead?

While I doubt it's only a 'copy' (possible but not only plausible idea)...

the eternal torture idea implies that human souls don't "perish" in the "second death" , where God will "destroy body and soul in hell" (these are all the actual wording of scripture!)... that's an idea I think definitely and certainly wrong.

 

[doubtingmerle]

At this last sentence you got full 'naturalism', which isn't an assumption I take for granted.

Huh? My last two sentences were: "But what if God made a copy of your brain to live forever? What you would then have is a copy of you, not you." The last sentence seems to me to be self-evident. If God made a copy of your brain, then that would be just a copy, and not the original you. How is that not an obviously true fact?

If you are questioning whether it is brain function that produces thoughts, emotions and memories, then I refer you to the whole field of study of the brain, which has indeed concluded that the brain is the thing that thinks.

 

[Halbhh]

Sorry, Halbhh, but that's not actually how it works. You believe one thing; I believe another. We cannot both be right. We could both be wrong, of course, which could mean that we both lose (or, perhaps, "win" - but it's also entirely possible that I am shown to be right and you are shown to be wrong.
In which case, I very much hope you will feel that you have won knowledge, you have gained a more enlightened view of the world, and you know something you did not know before.
But in cold fact, you will have lost the argument.

Thank you for your concern. Please, don't worry. I'm fine. I encourage you to shoot my argument down in flames if you feel you are able.
Remember:
"The purpose of the Christian Apologetics forum is to give non-Christians the opportunity to start threads to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, and Christians the opportunity to rationally defend their beliefs."
Good luck!

I think there are actually correct ideas that are fully independent of individuals, which fit all reality better than competing ideas. People only benefit solely if they gain one they didn't have. If you merely argue to only try to prevail in mere arguing, then you defeat yourself, see. An actual winning is to seek to learn.

 

[Halbhh]

Huh? My last two sentences were: "But what if God made a copy of your brain to live forever? What you would then have is a copy of you, not you." The last sentence seems to me to be self-evident. If God made a copy of your brain, then that would be just a copy, and not the original you. How is that not an obviously true fact?

If you are questioning whether it is brain function that produces thoughts, emotions and memories, then I refer you to the whole field of study of the brain, which has indeed concluded that the brain is the thing that thinks.

Here's the meaning I meant by naturalism:
Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia
And that 100% of all that happens and exists is solely from nature -- physics -- alone, and nothing from outside of nature.

In 'naturalism' God would be subject to nature, controlled and limited by it, see. Which is a contradiction. Of course to originate this Universe, God must be at least in part, or in full, independent of nature. So also then spirit must be, at least in part, if not entirely.

To assume full naturalism (instead of say partial) is to just assume God doesn't exist.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Here's the meaning I meant by naturalism:
Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia
And that 100% of all that happens and exists is solely from nature -- physics -- alone, and nothing from outside of nature.

In 'naturalism' God would be subject to nature, controlled and limited by it, see. Which is a contradiction. Of course to originate this Universe, God must be at least in part, or in full, independent of nature. So also then spirit must be, at least in part, if not entirely.

To assume full naturalism (instead of say partial) is to just assume God doesn't exist.

Huh?

Do you or do you not think that the brain stores our memories?

Do you or do you not think the brain is the part of us that thinks?

Do you or do you not think that when a person dies, the brain disintegrates?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ah, yes, nations that were influenced by Christianity led the world in many ways. I agree.

But correlation does not equal causation.

I see that there were two causes for early European domination in arts and sciences. One, the luck of the draw put Europe in a lucky position where its agriculture went way ahead of any other area, giving many thinkers in Europe a lot of time to work on new ideas. (See Jared Diamond's book, Guns, Germs and Steel.) Second, Europeans were first with the printing press. That one invention did more to promote the wide dissemination and advancement of ideas then any other invention.

Both of those developments could have happened elsewhere. Then we would be talking about how the great advancements were done by nations influenced by Akamba, Bimoism or Luoism, perhaps.

The printing press was invented partially for the same reasons that modern science was invented by Christians, ie that there is an objective reality and it is governed by rational, orderly, and intelligible laws because the Creator is a rational and intelligent and orderly being. Most other religions do not teach these things. And also that since God created and uses written language to communicate objective truth, humans decided they could to the same thing since we are created in His image.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I know, right? Silly totality of scientists from many disciplines, thinking they know about evolution just because of centuries of learning and mountains of converging evidence.
You ought to publish your thoughts. I'm sure you'd win a Nobel prize.

What centuries of learning and totality of scientists? The theory of evolution has only existed for 160 years and there are more scientists that dont accept the standard evolutionary theory than many realize. Unlikely they would publish my thoughts even though I am a biologist, I dont have the right dogma deep within, ie belief in macroevolution. There is also mountains of evidence that do not comport with modern evolutionary theory.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Got it. You are just going to repeat this over and over until we get tired of arguing with you. Well, Ok then.

Any person who will take the time to read the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence will see that it does not say what you say it says. In fact, it says the opposite. The whole purpose of the first two paragraphs is that people have the right to choose whatever government they personally think will best effect their safety and happiness. It then goes on to detail where the framers did not think the current government was good for their safety and happiness, how attempts to remedy that did not work, and how the signers came to the conclusion that they would be best off by breaking the ties with England.

So the founding fathers are saying our laws can be based on what we think is best for our safety and happiness (the same view of moral law you vehemently reject).

Nowhere do they say that we need a country where people who claim to be speaking for God foist their views on everyone else.

Quote mining a phrase or two from the document over and over again does not change this.

But go ahead, dump another post on this, ignoring the DOI, and pretending it says what you want. Whatever floats your boat.

I dont deny that it says many of those things, but there is nothing in those statements that are incompatible with my interpretation as shown by the actions of the founders themselves. And it plainly teaches that our fundamental rights from the Creator, and we know from the author that the Creator he is referring to is the Biblical unitarian Creator.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The printing press was invented partially for the same reasons that modern science was invented by Christians, ie that there is an objective reality and it is governed by rational, orderly, and intelligible laws because the Creator is a rational and intelligent and orderly being. Most other religions do not teach these things. And also that since God created and uses written language to communicate objective truth, humans decided they could to the same thing since we are created in His image.

Really? Prove it.
I mean, it sounds awfully sweet, the way you string things together and give God credit for them, but without any evidence...
(shrug)
Why should I bother answering this?
I'm sure they'll be awfully impressed with it down at the local church, though.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What centuries of learning and totality of scientists? The theory of evolution has only existed for 160 years and there are more scientists that dont accept the standard evolutionary theory than many realize. Unlikely they would publish my thoughts even though I am a biologist, I dont have the right dogma deep within, ie belief in macroevolution. There is also mountains of evidence that do not comport with modern evolutionary theory.

Sigh. A creationist. Wonderful.
Okay, then.
First, evolution is based on centuries of scientific learning.
Second, "the totality of scientists" is shorthand for how almost every scientist, especially in the biological scientists, agrees with the theory of evolution. No doubt you have a list of scientists who have doubts about evolution? I wonder how many names are in it...
If you're a biologist and you don't accept the theory of evolution, I'm afraid the dogma is on your side.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The printing press was invented partially for the same reasons that modern science was invented by Christians, ie that there is an objective reality and it is governed by rational, orderly, and intelligible laws

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Although there always was belief in objective reality, the modern understanding of an orderly universe guided by orderly laws really did not develop until after the printing press. Once the printing press was invented, ideas spread rapidly, and scientists were able to piece together how all the different aspects of the universe worked together.

And also that since God created and uses written language to communicate objective truth, humans decided they could to the same thing since we are created in His image.

Sorry, but humans were using written language long before the ancient Hebrews wrote the Bible.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The theory of evolution has only existed for 160 years and there are more scientists that dont accept the standard evolutionary theory than many realize.

Nobody is saying that there are few evolution deniers.

We are saying that evolution deniers have no good factual basis for their denial. See the difference?

Unlikely they would publish my thoughts even though I am a biologist, I dont have the right dogma deep within, ie belief in macroevolution.

Post them here. You are on the home team here.

Let's begin with the age of the earth. Clearly, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Life forms varied greatly in different periods of time. For instance, in the oldest layers where we find evidence of life, we have only single celled life. Do you agree?

There is also mountains of evidence that do not comport with modern evolutionary theory.

A mountain?

Or a molehill?

Let's start small. Please give me one piece of evidence that does not comport with modern evolutionary theory.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Nobody is saying that there are few evolution deniers.

We are saying that evolution deniers have no good factual basis for their denial. See the difference?

I agree with most of what you say, but would just like to point out that while there are certainly plenty of evolution deniers, they constitute only a small minority of the scientific community, and a tiny minority of the biological community.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I think there are actually correct ideas that are fully independent of individuals, which fit all reality better than competing ideas. People only benefit solely if they gain one they didn't have. If you merely argue to only try to prevail in mere arguing, then you defeat yourself, see. An actual winning is to seek to learn.

I think you're failing to understand the difference between winning an argument and "being a winner" in life.
If one person thinks that the internal angles of a triangle always equal 180 degrees and another person thinks it's 360, then the second person is going to lose the argument. He may well be a winner in the sense that he now knows more, and good for him. But he's also lost the argument. You ought to bear this in mind, since we are on a debating forum, not a friendly chatting forum.

Speaking of which, are we getting to the part yet where you shoot down my argument in flames? Just to remind you, we're talking about the Euthyphro Dilemma. I really would be interested in seeing you resolve it, since I had always thought it presents an insuperable obstacle to any Christian who claims that their morality is based on the existence of their God. But if you can resolve it, I shall be happy to have lost the argument and gained new knowledge.

 

[Halbhh]

Huh?

Do you or do you not think that the brain stores our memories?

Do you or do you not think the brain is the part of us that thinks?

Do you or do you not think that when a person dies, the brain disintegrates?

Do you think we could do better than this kind of discussion:

Person A: "There is something about the taste of apples...."

Person B: "What!? Don't you think apples grow on trees?"

lol, I hope we could do better than that level of discussion.

...

Lemme address more directly the complete unknown you asked about --

My last two sentences were: "But what if God made a copy of your brain to live forever? What you would then have is a copy of you, not you." The last sentence seems to me to be self-evident. If God made a copy of your brain, then that would be just a copy, and not the original you. How is that not an obviously true fact?

It doesn't make sense to me personally to guess that God would make a 'copy' of brains. It seems too simple to me personally -- why should God be limited to just 21rst century ideas/speculations we have from our recent science/technology like making a data copy?

(i.e. -- that kind of limitation itself wouldn't make sense; more likely it would be something surprising to us, instead of ordinary)

We could at most only speculate. e.g. (random speculation): Transform the physical by some transformative process somewhat analogous to a chemical reaction or analogous to how a caterpillar in a cocoon transforms into a butterfly, etc. -- e.g. maybe the Quantum Mechanics idea of conservation of information (that information can't be destroyed or created) isn't breakable in a way that is best, so a transformation is best (this is speculation).

Who knows? Any such guessing (I'd expect also including when someone thinks they know) is purely speculative.

But the way spirit is connected to the physical is entirely mystery.

Consider further -- if spirit could be described/tested in some objective way, it would contradict scripture also and all would stop making sense, since any testable evidence would prevent/preclude/obviate 'faith', which is to believe before any proof -- objective evidence would prevent/destroy the central key goal of life here as described by scripture.

So, if scripture is correct (and if I understand this part correctly), then mere proof is always impossible to find, by God's intent that it be impossible to find, and any actual clear simple direct evidence would be proactively removed to help maintain the opportunity for faith.

 

[Halbhh]

are we getting to the part yet where you shoot down my argument in flames?

No, I ideally won't try to do that. I think arguing to 'win' is self-harming to 100% of people that engage in it.

So you could state 50 wrong things, and ideally I won't try to "shoot any of them down in flames", though I might say something is incorrect.

I'd ideally just offer a more true alternative idea.

An idea you could reject without even considering it, if that's your preference.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No, I ideally won't try to do that. I think arguing to 'win' is self-harming to 100% of people that engage in it.

So you could state 50 wrong things, and ideally I won't try to "shoot any of them down in flames", though I might say something is incorrect.

I'd ideally just offer a more true alternative idea.

An idea you could reject without even considering it, if that's your preference.

Are you sure you're on the right forum?
Check the Statement of Purpose.
"The purpose of the Christian Apologetics forum is to give non-Christians the opportunity to start threads to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, and Christians the opportunity to rationally defend their beliefs."

Come on. Step up. Have a go!

Is a thing good because God says it is good? Or does God say it's good because it is good?

It's a simple enough question. What do you say?