Where's God?

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Who is we? I have known and read about many couples over the years say that they don't need government sanction to believe that their marriage is real.

ia: Sure they don't. And nor do you need government recognition to know that you are a Christian. But if the government did refuse to recognise your religion and made it illegal, this would be an outrageous infringment on your rights. It's exactly the same here.

No, marriage is not a right.

ed: Well why are you not pushing the government to recognize such marriages? How about two brothers? or Three brothers?

ia: There's an awful lot of things I believe in that I don't push the government on.

Don't you want them to have happiness?

ed: You cant prove anything you say either.

ia: Thank you for that admission that you can't prove anything you say. If you say "You can't prove anything either," then your meaning is that neither of us can prove what we say.

Yes, that is true, the only thing one can prove with certainty is their own existence and that only to themselves. Philosophers have known this for at least 400 years.

ed: What is your evidence that the mind is what the brain does? I admit I cant prove that the mind/spirit is nonphysical, but there is evidence it exists. Personal identity thru time and if transgenderism is real, these two phenomenon plus the points I made above are strong evidence that the mind is primarily not based on the physical. In addition, some NDEs have not been explained by purely physical processes. If the mind is based purely on the physical then how do we have free will?

ia: Thank you for admitting that you can't prove the mind/spirit is not physical.
Your evidence that the mind exists in a nonphysical form is not worth taking seriously. Personal identity through time? That isn't evidence of a nonphysical mind or spirit.

If you take all the legs and the back off a chair, it is no longer the same chair, but almost every cell in the human body is replaced every 7 years and yet you are still the same person 7 years later.

ia: Transgenderism being real? Thanks, I think, but how is saying that a person has a strong and consistent set of thoughts evidence for the existence of the spiritual?

If transgenderism is real, then a being with every cell in his body being male, but his mind is female, so that biology has practically nothing to do with the actual sex or gender of the person/mind.

ia: NDEs? People having dreams. So what?

No, there are cases where people have gained knowledge that they could not have obtained without having left their bodies.
↑

ed: What is your evidence that the nonphysical mind doesn't exist?

ia: You're mixing up the burden of proof. I don't need evidence. You're the one who claims the spiritual exists. So you prove it. Or, if you can't prove it, provide evidence for it.

Well then how do you know it doesnt exist? See above for the evidence. In addition, if the mind is purely physical then your decisions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain and not the weighing of evidence.

 

[doubtingmerle]

if the mind is purely physical then your decisions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain and not the weighing of evidence.

Using your logic, if a computer is purely physical then its decisions are based on the movements of electrons in the computer and not logical calculations.

Therefore, using your logic, we have proven that computers cannot do spreadsheets.

But I don't agree with your logic.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: There is no such right as I proved earlier.

ia: In fact, there is. The laws of our society show that we have decided that such a right does exist. And now I am interested in uncovering your reasons for saying that this right should not be extended to gay people.
I mean, I'm pretty sure I know that your reasons are purely religious. I'm just interested in helping you to see it.

No, the SCOTUS did, but they and you cannot just make up rights. Remember their Dred Scott decision? And Roe v. Wade? Rights were made up out of thin air and caused horrible trouble for millions. According to our founding documents, our rights come from God and nature, not humans. The ruling on gay marriage was plainly a violation of the DOI and the Constitution.

ed: No, just take that one little step in logic and you will know the cause of the universe.
Hmmm.
IA: I don't know why the universe started.
Ed: Because God.
IA: How do you know?
Ed: Well, you just said you don't know. But I do.
IA: Prove it.
Ed: Well, you can't prove it wasn't God, so it must be.
IA: And your evidence?
Ed: I don't need any. It's just logic.

No, that is not my argument. Here is my argument:
1. The universe exists and had a beginning meaning it is an effect.
2. All effects need causes, therefore the universe needs a cause.
3. Scientists study the characteristics of an effect to determine the characteristics of the cause.
4. The universe is physical.
5. According to the law of causality, a cause cannot be part of the effect.
6. Therefore the cause of the universe must be non-physical.
7. The universe contains purposes, ie ears for hearing and eyes for seeing. and it contains laws, ie the laws of physics.
8. Only personal beings create purposes and laws, therefore the cause of the universe is a Personal being, ie God.
↑

ed: Like former atheist cosmologists who never had any contact with Christians much less Christian apologists?

ia: "Former". Christians now, are they? I imagine they grew up in a Christian society?

Yes, but never had much contact with them until after college.
↑

ed: The same way I know my physical senses are reliable.

ia: You might actually be close to grasping the truth here. We shall see.
So, you can test your physical senses? Against the physical world, right? Your physical senses inform you that there is a wall in front of you, and you can reach out and touch it.
So, how do you test that your moral sense is accurate?

By experience.

ed:He doesn't have to be to give us a reliable moral conscience. He may or may not be good when He gives us the conscience. Or He may be good yet not prove it to us but rather He gives the moral conscience to us so we can make our own determination of whether He is good. And it turns out that is the case.

ia: You're right. God may or may not be good.
Since you have stated that it is God who says what is good and what is not, you have no way of knowing.

Yes, we do, just like you determine if your friends are good.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed:↑No, a better analogy is God is our programmer and He created each computer/person slightly different and He created us to solve moral problems to test our problem solving ability and those that don't do a good job doing so are junked and only keeps the computers that do the best job.

ia: That's fine, if that's what we're discussing. But it's not. You're changing the subject. what we're discussing is, how can a Christian claim to have an objective moral foundation.

Because God objectively exists and his objectively existing moral character is our moral foundation.

ia: Now, in your analogy above, of God as a computer programmer, we can certainly see whether or not the computer programs are able to complete the jobs assigned to them, and it's quite fair to say that God sets a standard against which they can be measured.

However, the question we are asking is, "How do we know that what God says is good is in fact good?" And your analogy doesn't touch on that. Yes, the "Great Computer Programmer" can set a standard, but who is to say that the standard He sets is the right one?

We can determine it using our moral conscience and looking at his character as revealed the life of Jesus Christ His son.

ed: By living them out and looking at the results. So as you live them out you discover your life more fulfilling and successful than previously, that shows they are good for us.

ia: You might not notice this, but you just lost the argument.
You have just shown that the foundation of morality is not what God says, but how we interact with the world around us. As you yourself said: actions which make your life more fulfilling and successful show that they are good for us. Therefore, there is no need for God to tell us what to do. Morality is something we can work out.
That's an over-simplification, of course, but never the less, you've grasped the essence of it.

No, you misunderstood, I was referring to living out God's moral laws, not my own. But yes, by living out is His morality we discover all the above I mentioned and then you learn that these laws even have eternal impacts for your good.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

According to our founding documents, our rights come from God and nature, not humans. The ruling on gay marriage was plainly a violation of the DOI and the Constitution.

If our rights come from God where in the Bible does it give the right to:

Free speech - It says the opposite.
Free expression of religion - God does not allow that.
Right to own a gun
Free from forcibly housing of soldiers in your home
Right to a free press
Right to a grand jury or due process - God is the ultimate judge not a jury (Ananias and Saphira)
Free from cruel or unusual punishment - God does some cruel punishments.

The bible is mainly in opposition to our rights in America. Rights are agreed upon by a society, they do not come from god. They can change over time.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed: It is part of the self existing creator. It does not have a beginning.

ia: Attempting to define your answer into existence is flawed logic. "It just is" is not a persuasive argument.

A self existent creator violates no principle of logic. And as I stated earlier there is evidence He exists.

ed: Courts are part of the government and so are dictators, same thing.

ia: Only in a dictatorship. Which we're not, despite Trump's best efforts.

Doesn't refute the fact of my statement above. Democracies can be dictatorial too. Trump actually reduced the size and power of government the exact opposite of what dictators do.
↑

ed: The whole thing was based on our secular humanistic government arbitrarily deciding that science must be based on the philosophy of naturalism which is narrowminded and unAmerican. Some of our greatest scientific discoveries were the direct result of good science done by non-naturalistic scientists. And in fact, all the major branches of modern science were founded by non-naturalistic scientists. So by being open to the supernatural has no effect on the scientific method and preventing great scientific discoveries and in fact by limiting scientific endeavor in this way limits the possibility of even greater scientific discoveries.

ia: There's nothing arbitrary about it. It's a perfectly rational explanation to exclude the supernatural from science. The supernatural cannot be proven,

Nothing in science can be proven with certainty, especially in fact if you deny the existence of a creator. You have no explanation for the existence of the intelligibility and orderliness of nature. And the correlation between subject and object which is required for science. Atheists have no basis for believing that what they observe is really there. Theists do.

ia: cannot be demonstrated, and has no effect on the real world.

Yes, I demonstrated its and Gods existence earlier in this thread. And the real world would not exist without Him. And as I stated above, if there is no God then you have no rational basis for believing that what you observe is actually the real world.

ia: Being open to the supernatural would be fatal to the scientific method. You would no longer be able to say, "My experiment proved this," because you would have to say "unless it was the little elves who did it, or God answered a prayer to make it happen, or a wizard cast a spell just as I performed the experiment."

No, you can use theistic methodological naturalism as most of the founders of modern science did. You would only bring God in after all knowledge and investigations into natural causes are exhausted and of course, still leave the conclusion open not finalized. In science, no answer is completely final but the most likely answer until evidence comes in to falsify it.

ia: Again: Creationism has been in many, many battles, doggedly trying to lie its way into respectability. At each turn, it has been crushed. To say that you are a Creationist at this point is, quite simply, to concede defeat.

Fraid not, and the scientific evidence is growing more and more for a creator, especially the Christian creator.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Here is my argument:
1. The universe exists and had a beginning meaning it is an effect.
2. All effects need causes, therefore the universe needs a cause.
3. Scientists study the characteristics of an effect to determine the characteristics of the cause.
4. The universe is physical.
5. According to the law of causality, a cause cannot be part of the effect.
6. Therefore the cause of the universe must be non-physical.

Using the same logic, changing only the words in italics:

1. This blizzard exists and had a beginning meaning it is an effect.
2. All effects need causes, therefore this blizzard needs a cause.
3. Scientists study the characteristics of an effect to determine the characteristics of the cause.
4. This blizzard is physical.
5. According to the law of causality, a cause cannot be part of the effect.
6. Therefore the cause of this blizzard must be non-physical.

So what non-physical thing causes blizzards? Demons? Should we start calling meterologists demonologists?

Your logic is bunkers.

All this is odd, since you keep insisting (falsely) that Christianity discovered methodological naturalism because you say (falsely) that the Bible says that divine interventions are rare. And yet when it comes to causes, you say that the cause of every physical action needs to be non-physical.

Sounds like nonsense to me.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You said to @doubtingmerle :

But remember when I said:
Okay. If we accept this to be true, how do you go about proving that the things that God says are good, actually are good? You keep avoiding this question. I don't blame you.
And you answered:

So you've sabotaged your own argument. According to you, we can tell what it is good. You take actions, and look at the results. You discover that your life is more fulfilling and successful than previously, and that shows that they are good for us.

Yes, by following God's moral teachings you discover that your life is more fulfilling and successful than when you followed your own morals.

ia: Well, exactly. And how do you tell if this "God" who you believe to be the creator is good? Since your definition of "good" is being in accordance with God's character, you're using circular reasoning. "How do we know God is good? Because He's God, and God is good by definition."

I also said we know He is good thru experience and our moral conscience. No circular reasoning there.

ia: In what sense do our actions have eternal consequences? And why should this lead to a person being punished forever?

Because our actions or inactions can send people to either an eternal life with God and His love or an eternal life under His judgement. Because of extreme seriousness of rebelling against the good King of the Universe.

ia: In human society, we consider lifelong punishment to be a very severe punishment indeed, fitting only for extreme crimes. If we were able to have such a thing as "eternal" punishment, that would surely be classed as cruel and unusual. Why do you think it is a suitable punishment? Steal an orange, don't repent of it, and go to hell for a million years? That simply doesn't make sense.

Because you dont understand the extreme seriousness of rebelling against the perfect and good King of the Universe.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Wrong. You are playing the game of, "whoever gets the last word in, wins". If we all played that game, the thread would go on forever.

You have been refuted many times. You ignore what we write. Then you make the same claim over again.

Rinse. Lather. Repeat. Rinse. Lather. Repeat. Rinse... Wait, no lather? Therefore victory!

Just saying that something I claimed is a delusion is not a refutation.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Because it does not fit the scientific and theological evidence as well as OEC.

dm: Here is the evidence for evolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent (talkorigins.org)

That all fits evolution far better than old earth Creationism.

I dont have time to go thru all 29, pick the three you think are the best evidences and I will respond.

ed: Actually, the fossil record shows that it is more likely that God intervened usually at the Genus level when environmental conditions resulted in significant extinctions.

dm: And yet we see a whole series of horse family fossils from eohippus to the horse, zebra, and donkey. And the changes with time are exactly the type of thing one would expect to see if the process was directed by natural selection.

Actually recent research has shown the famous horse series to be false. Miohippus' ancestor was supposedly Mesohippus but actually Miohippus is now found in the fossil record before Mesohippus therefore eliminating Mesohippus as its ancestor and some of the fossils are not even related at all to modern horses such as Protohippus. But also some of it may be microevolution of the horse kind or genus or family.

dm: Suppose God created a new creature from scratch at every genus. Horses and zebras popping into existence out of nothing violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy.

I didnt say it was always done from scratch, some organisms in a family may have just had their genes tweaked by God. But of course, God does not violate His laws, He just suspends them temporarily on rare occasions.

dm: Horses and zebras popping into existence out of nothing violate the laws of momentum. If the zebra God creates is stationary with respect to the center of the earth, while the surface of the earth is moving at 1000 mile per hour, that newly created zebra will go for a nasty tumble. Whoops! No more zebra. But if God creates a zebra out of nothing moving at 1000 miles an hour, that violates the law of conservation of angular momentum.

See above, He doesnt violate anything.

dm: It claims that life, language, and love came from the random motion of subatomic particles.
Here is the list of the arguments you have given here to verify that life, language, and love cannot come from the motion of subatomic particles:

1. Because I said so.

No, that is not my argument. According to the scientific Law of Biogenesis, life can only come from life. This was established by the great Louis Pasteur. And language and love have only been empirically observed coming from personal beings.

ed: That is just the process by which a person is produced but the ultimate cause has to be personal.

dm: We have been through this before. Nobody has been here for all 4 million years of human evolution. Therefore, you declare it never happened. But, of course, some things happened (like human evolution) before you were born.

That is not my only argument that it probably never happened, but I dont deny that there is some evidence for evolution, just not enough to convince me. Maybe God used evolution to create us but as I said logic strongly points to the ultimate cause being personal.

ed: Genetic entropy and not enough time to name two significant barriers to macroevolution.

dm: Would you like us to explain to you one more time that entropy can decrease in an open system? Did you forget that already?

Genetic entropy is not the same thing as thermodynamic entropy.

dm: And how do you know that 4.5 billion years is not enough time for evolution?

Scientific studies.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No, marriage is not a right.

Again you cut off the branch you're sitting in. You do that a lot, as Merle has pointed out.
If the government refused to recognise your religion and banned you from practising it, that would be an outrageous infringement on your rights to believe as you see fit.
And as for gay marriage, there's a big difference between a man and a woman people saying they don't want to get married, and a man and a woman saying they do want to get married and the government telling them that they can't, for no reason other than they wish to. You would, I'm sure, recognise the injustice in that; it's the same with gay people.

Don't you want them to have happiness?

Sure, but I don't have time to pursue each and every thing I think should happen in a perfect world.

Yes, that is true, the only thing one can prove with certainty is their own existence and that only to themselves. Philosophers have known this for at least 400 years.

Ridiculous. Just because we can't prove anything with 100% certainty, that doesn't mean we can't use "prove" in it's non-mathematical sense to show the truth of a situation. If we were to meet in person, I'm sure you'd be happy to accept my proof that my hair is black, I have ten fingers and I am 180 cm tall. And if you could prove God, I'm sure you would. As it is, your arguments - as I feel quite confident saying, on our fifty-sixth page of conversation - are nothing but sophistry and bad logic.

If you take all the legs and the back off a chair, it is no longer the same chair, but almost every cell in the human body is replaced every 7 years and yet you are still the same person 7 years later.

Yes. So?

If transgenderism is real, then a being with every cell in his body being male, but his mind is female, so that biology has practically nothing to do with the actual sex or gender of the person/mind.

Uh...so?

No, there are cases where people have gained knowledge that they could not have obtained without having left their bodies.

(shrug). Stories get told. Who cares? Especially when the reporters are generally credulous and unreliable.

Well then how do you know it doesn't exist? See above for the evidence. In addition, if the mind is purely physical then your decisions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain and not the weighing of evidence.

As Merle has already pointed out, this is nonsense.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Just saying that something I claimed is a delusion is not a refutation.

Correct.

But refuting somebody many times is a refutation.

Sir, this thread is 1111 posts long. Anybody can see that you have been refuted many times.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Because God objectively exists and his objectively existing moral character is our moral foundation.

I'm happy to assume that God exists, for the purpose of this exercise. In which case, please don't say that He "objectively" exists. He does nothing of the sort!
However, since whether or not God's character is your moral foundation is the thing that you're trying to prove, you can't assume this for the sake of your argument. Don't you feel embarrassed, saying "Let me now prove that I am right. To begin with, let us assume that I am right," like this?

We can determine it using our moral conscience and looking at his character as revealed the life of Jesus Christ His son.

If the first, who gave you the moral conscience? God. Therefore, it cannot be used as evidence, since its morality is itself the thing you are trying to prove.
As for Jesus's life, either you are using your God-given moral conscience to assess it (in which case your case is invalid, see above) or you are using some other system (in which case you don't need God to tell right from wrong, and so you lose the argument again).

No, you misunderstood, I was referring to living out God's moral laws, not my own. But yes, by living out is His morality we discover all the above I mentioned and then you learn that these laws even have eternal impacts for your good.

You've still lost the argument. If there are certain things that we can do that make us feel better, and feeling better about doing them is our justification for them being moral (as you stated above when you said, "By living them out and looking at the results. So as you live them out you discover your life more fulfilling and successful than previously, that shows they are good for us") then you don't need God to be a foundation for your morality. You find that certain things are rewarding and fulfilling to do, and - as you yourself said - you know that they are good for you, and therefore moral."
I don't expect you to accept this. I expect you to deny, ignore or forget about what you said. But I'll remember that you said morality is based on what you experience in the world and what is enriching and rewarding to you. And while that's not exactly correct, it is a good start at a system that does not require God's existence at all. Well done.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Don't you want them to have happiness?

Yes.

And I agree with Thomas Jefferson that they can seek to find happiness by seeking to have governments do what seems most likely to them to positively affect their safety and happiness. Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

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. (Source, emphasis added)
​

In context, "these ends" refers to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". So Jefferson is clearly saying that people have the right to seek the government that, in their personal opinion, will best effect their safety and happiness.

The Declaration nowhere says that those who claim to speak for God have the right to force their views of government on others.

And it was not only Jefferson that said this. Multiple others with authority in the colonies signed this document. That led to a war, fighting over that very thing, the right to govern themselves based on what they personally thought would best effect their safety and happiness.

And I am thankful that they did that.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No, the SCOTUS did, but they and you cannot just make up rights. Remember their Dred Scott decision? And Roe v. Wade? Rights were made up out of thin air and caused horrible trouble for millions. According to our founding documents, our rights come from God and nature, not humans. The ruling on gay marriage was plainly a violation of the DOI and the Constitution.

Of course the courts can decide on what people's rights are. That's their job. Don't be ridiculous.

No, that is not my argument. Here is my argument:
1. The universe exists and had a beginning meaning it is an effect.
2. All effects need causes, therefore the universe needs a cause.
3. Scientists study the characteristics of an effect to determine the characteristics of the cause.
4. The universe is physical.
5. According to the law of causality, a cause cannot be part of the effect.
6. Therefore the cause of the universe must be non-physical.
7. The universe contains purposes, ie ears for hearing and eyes for seeing. and it contains laws, ie the laws of physics.
8. Only personal beings create purposes and laws, therefore the cause of the universe is a Personal being, ie God.

Wrong again.
Point 7: wrong and misleading. Maybe the cause of the physical universe was something else that is physical. Who knows? Maybe it was something non-physical but other than God. Who knows? And that's the point. You can't just say "My God fits the criteria for something that could have created the universe, therefore we must consider God as a serious possibility," because you have yet to offer any evidence at all that your God exists.
Point 8: nonsense. The existence of ears and eyes is a tiny accident of chemistry on a tiny speck of rock in an enormous universe. It's explained by science, and we need look no further for an explanation. You might just as well say that because the universe contains gold, it was created by a Golden Retriever. It would follow exactly the same line of reasoning, and be just as ridiculous.
Also, you're confusing prescriptive and descriptive laws.

The thing is, Ed, you're just not very good at this. Can I suggest you stop trying to explain things and instead rethink them?

Yes, but never had much contact with them until after college.

Just as one would expect.

By experience.

Exactly. Your morality is derived from your contact with the world and your experience. In other words, God is unnecessary.

Yes, we do, just like you determine if your friends are good.

Not at all. Because in this case, you are saying that God is the foundation of morality, and you are still - after over fifty pages - unable to prove this. (In case I'm not being clear, by "prove" I mean provide a reasonable logical argument and/or convincing evidence for what you say).

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Because our actions or inactions can send people to either an eternal life with God and His love or an eternal life under His judgement. Because of extreme seriousness of rebelling against the good King of the Universe.

Oh. Circular reasoning. Why should I have expected otherwise?
IA: Why does God send people to hell forever?
Ed: Because of the eternal consequences of their sin.
IA: What are these eternal consequences?
Ed: They'll be sent to hell forever because of they sins.

Because you dont understand the extreme seriousness of rebelling against the perfect and good King of the Universe.

You're right, I don't. Probably because it doesn't make sense. I steal a chocolate bar at the age of five and get sentenced to eternal torture for it?
Look, you're free to believe in a God that acts like that. You just can't tell us it's right, because it isn't.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Yes, by following God's moral teachings you discover that your life is more fulfilling and successful than when you followed your own morals.

I have found the opposite to be true. But it doesn’t really matter until you can provide convincing evidence that your gods morals are real and good.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Point 7: wrong and misleading. Maybe the cause of the physical universe was something else that is physical. Who knows? Maybe it was something non-physical but other than God. Who knows? And that's the point. You can't just say "My God fits the criteria for something that could have created the universe, therefore we must consider God as a serious possibility," because you have yet to offer any evidence at all that your God exists.
Point 8: nonsense. The existence of ears and eyes is a tiny accident of chemistry on a tiny speck of rock in an enormous universe. It's explained by science, and we need look no further for an explanation. You might just as well say that because the universe contains gold, it was created by a Golden Retriever. It would follow exactly the same line of reasoning, and be just as ridiculous.
Also, you're confusing prescriptive and descriptive laws.

The thing is, Ed, you're just not very good at this. Can I suggest you stop trying to explain things and instead rethink them?

Also, there is no "law of causality" in physics. In fact, our classical understanding of causality breaks down at the quantum level.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Because God objectively exists and his objectively existing moral character is our moral foundation.

Even granting that Yahweh exists, and that he has a certain moral character, and that you have a reliable means of gleaning what that character is, you are still no closer to bridging the is/ought gap. You still have to make a value judgment to adopt that as your standard, and values are necessarily subjective. "Objective value" is an oxymoron.

 

[doubtingmerle]

(deleted)