Where's God?

[doubtingmerle]

. I am referring to verses like Jeremiah 33:25 that says that the universe operates primarily by natural law

So your argument goes something like this:

The Argument from Night and Day
1. Jeremiah said that night follows day and day follows night.
2. Night indeed follows day, and day indeed follows night.
3. How did Jeremiah know that? It's a miracle!
4. Therefore, God exists.

Some of us don't find that convincing.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, but they were programmed to do that, according to atheists, Nature was not.

You say this in response to:

The complex computer programs that run genetic algorithms are designed. Of course. I was not talking about the design of the programs. I was talking about what they do. They take random solutions and evaluate them. Then they "marry" the best solutions together to get new solutions. Then they mutate some of the solutions and test them again. They continue to mutate and marry solutions. Eventually they often come up with novel solution that nobody ever thought of.

The point is that the process of random mutations with gene shuffling works and works well.​

And you nowhere address the point. Yes, of course, genetic programs were designed. The point is that genetic algorithms work, and they design new things.

Another example is the immune system. When invaders come into our bodies, our defenses make numerous attempts to build an antibody to fight them. Our bodies then start making combinations of those attempts that came closest to success. The combination of random changes, natural selection of the best solutions, and "marrying" of the best solutions, works. We end up defeating the invading disease.

Both genetic algorithms and natural immunity use a process similar to evolution. The process works.

Nature might not have been specifically designed evolution to work that way, but once the process got established, it has worked, and worked well.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Here is my argument:

Go for it!

1. The universe exists and had a beginning meaning it is an effect.

OK.

2. All effects need causes, therefore the universe needs a cause.

OK, but the cause can be simply that quantum mechanics, or something like it, caused the universe.

3. Scientists study the characteristics of an effect to determine the characteristics of the cause.

You seem to be describing theology, not science.

Science empirically studies events, and analytically look at what is happening. They form a hypothesis and test it.

4. The universe is physical.

OK.

5. According to the law of causality, a cause cannot be part of the effect.

But the cause can be similar to the effect, e.g. weather patterns cause hurricanes.

6. Therefore the cause of the universe must be non-physical.

Flapdoodle. If all physical effects are caused by non-physical things, we must be living in a strange, demon haunted world.

7. The universe contains purposes, ie ears for hearing and eyes for seeing. and it contains laws, ie the laws of physics.

Ok sorta.

8. Only personal beings create purposes and laws,

How do you know the laws did not always exist?

How do you know that the Higgs field cannot create the laws of another universe?

therefore the cause of the universe is a Personal being, ie God.

That is the best you can do?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You have no explanation for the existence of the intelligibility and orderliness of nature.

Sure we do. The laws of nature make things work in an orderly manner.

Where did the laws of nature come from? I don't know. Maybe the basic laws always existed.

I find it more credible to believe the laws of nature always existed, then to believe an omnipotent law-of-nature-maker always exist

Atheists have no basis for believing that what they observe is really there. Theists do.

Actual, I have 5.

1. I see things.
2. I hear things.
3. I feel things.
4. I smell things.
5. I taste things.​

No, you can use theistic methodological naturalism as most of the founders of modern science did.

Is that like using theistic truck driving skills or theistic cooking skills?

Why not simply say you are scientists, truck drivers, or chefs that happen to be Christians?

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.

The God of the Gaps, huh?

I tried that. The problem is, every time science moves on, the gaps get smaller. It became frustrating trying to find ever smaller gaps that science hadn't reached yet to claim as my intellectual home.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

Yes, Ed has said many things that are a good start. And I suppose that many people reading this thread have had a good start at thinking about these things.

Good starts often lead to good finishes.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't suppose you consider the millions of people whose lives have been changed by Islam as evidence that Allah's word is the one truth. And you'd be right not to; it's ridiculously weak evidence. And so is yours.

Yes, that is indeed weak evidence.

People in despair often reach out to something new, such as religion, to help them through it. They later feel better. As you know, that does not prove they picked the right religion. Just seeing the problem and doing something about it--anything--is often enough.

If a new outlook after becoming a Christian counts as evidence, one would think we should also consider the new outlook many have found after leaving the faith.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yes, Ed has said many things that are a good start. And I suppose that many people reading this thread have had a good start at thinking about these things.

Good starts often lead to good finishes.

I dare say some good may come of this thread, from people reading it!
We've gone sixty-two pages so far without it being shut down. That's something of an achievement!

 

[doubtingmerle]

I dare say some good may come of this thread, from people reading it!
We've gone sixty-two pages so far without it being shut down. That's something of an achievement!

Thanks for all your hard work. There is an enormous amount of useful information in this thread. It's been worthwhile. I wish much of this content could be made available to a wider audience.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Thanks for all your hard work. There is an enormous amount of useful information in this thread. It's been worthwhile. I wish much of this content could be made available to a wider audience.

Maybe you should publish a book. Socrates' dialogues for the modern world!

 

[Ed1wolf]

First of all, other religions might have something to say about that! Excuse me if I don't take your word for it.
Second, and more importantly: it doesn't work like that. Just because you can't imagine an explanation for something, doesn't mean you're free to put forward an unsubstantiated one - much less that you are allowed to claim that this is the "most likely" one.
Seven hundred years ago, people said that illnesses were punishments or trials of faith sent by God, because no other explanation fitted the facts; a few hundred years ago, people said that the Earth was made by God a few millenia ago, because no other explanation fits the facts; and a few hours ago, you said that God was the most likely explanation for the universe because no other explanation fit the facts.
Your preferred explanation for something does not win by default. You have to give evidence. "If my God were real, it would account for the Universe's existence" is not evidence.

No, you have my argument backwards. My argument is that this certain type of universe came into existence and has certain characteristics. Only a being that is basically identical to the Christian God could be the cause of this type of universe, therefore He most likely is the Cause of this universe.

ia: That's fine. So you've found something that matches those characteristics? Outside of a story, I mean? Because from where I sit, the only "finding" that has been done of God is in stories, whether they come from the Bible or are stories of people's personal, unverifiable experiences.

Nevertheless, personal experiences of a person ARE evidence for the existence of that person. Just as your experiences of me on this thread is evidence that I exist even though you have never seen me.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Nevertheless, personal experiences of a person ARE evidence for the existence of that person. Just as your experiences of me on this thread is evidence that I exist even though you have never seen me.

I can objectively see your posts. His posts I have not yet seen.

Next time you talk to him, could you ask him to do what you do, start posting on this forum? That would make for some extremely worthwhile threads.

When you have these conversations with the God you experience, do you sometimes feel like the old man at the Wailing Wall, who complained that it seemed like he was just talking to a wall? Those conversations you have, are they mostly one way? Are you sure you are not just talking to an imaginary friend?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No, you have my argument backwards. My argument is that this certain type of universe came into existence and has certain characteristics. Only a being that is basically identical to the Christian God could be the cause of this type of universe, therefore He most likely is the Cause of this universe.

How can you possibly know what type of being is capable of creating a universe? Humans have precisely zero experience with the creation of universes.

Nevertheless, personal experiences of a person ARE evidence for the existence of that person. Just as your experiences of me on this thread is evidence that I exist even though you have never seen me.

Sure it is. But only for you. I have no evidence at all of God's speaking to me, just you saying that He spoke to you. And that evidence has virtually no value at all.
Not to mention, @doubtingmerle is quite right. Do you have evidence that you're not just imagining this?

 

[dlamberth]

Only a being that is basically identical to the Christian God could be the cause of this type of universe, therefore He most likely is the Cause of this universe.

One of the reasons why I left the Christian religion is basically around this point. What I found is that the image of the Christian God could not possibly be the cause of the type of universe we live in. That particular image of a Divine being, the Christian image, sets God apart from Creation. There are images and inner experiences of God in other spiritual trajectories that I think are way more in line with the Divine activity within Creation.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Yes, but atheism does not provide an objectively rational basis for rational thought, fairness, and respect for others. That is my point. Understand?

ia: Sure it does. In a nutshell, it goes like this: would you like it if people treated you badly? No? Then don't treat them badly. Morality is rationally grounded in enlightened self-interest. Moral issues can be complex to work out, but in essence it's simply a matter of empathy. Yes, it's all the result of bags of chemical water, ie, living humans. So was Shakespeare and the Declaration of Independence and the theory of relativity.
You, on the other hand, profess a system of morality that has no rational basis, as has been shown by your inability to address Euthyphro's Dilemma and your attempts to justify your moral framework using circular logic.

Some people like to be treated badly. Jeffrey Dahmer felt he was acting in his enlightened self interest by killing and eating his sex partners. So no, your morality is just subjective preference. Both you and Dahmer base your decisions on your feelings and understanding of self interest but just produce different actions. My ability to address the dilemma is irrelevant to the fact I have an objectively rational basis for my morality. The objectively existing moral character of God is the basis of my morality. Euthryphros Dilemma does nothing to refute that fact.

ed: Well of course, in a business setting most people dont talk about the basis for their morality and why they do things.

ia: True enough. But if they did, people would quickly realise that your particular brand of morality, as you state it, is morally bankrupt and illogical.

A morality that has a rationally objective basis is the exact opposite of morally bankrupt and illogical. See above why your morality is both of those exact things. You have no objective definitions of like, badly, or self interest. Or even empathy.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Some people like to be treated badly. Jeffrey Dahmer felt he was acting in his enlightened self interest by killing and eating his sex partners. So no, your morality is just subjective preference. Both you and Dahmer base your decisions on your feelings and understanding of self interest but just produce different actions. My ability to address the dilemma is irrelevant to the fact I have an objectively rational basis for my morality. The objectively existing moral character of God is the basis of my morality. Euthryphros Dilemma does nothing to refute that fact.


A morality that has a rationally objective basis is the exact opposite of morally bankrupt and illogical. See above why your morality is both of those exact things. You have no objective definitions of like, badly, or self interest. Or even empathy.

First, we have now established that you do not have a functioning system of morality. Oh, no doubt you're a nice person who lives as virtuous a life as anybody, but the reasons you give for your system of morality simply fall apart when analysed. Euthyphro's Dilemma shows how a moral system based solely on the character of a deity is completely meaningless. You may not accept this, but since all your arguments to the contrary are nothing more than denial, it's plain for anyone else to see.

A system built on enlightened self-interest does not mean "do anything you want at any time, with no concern for how it hurts other people." Try it if you like, and see how it works out! You'll find that, in general, it is not in your own best interests to be a horrible person. The people around you react to it and make life difficult for you. It's in your own interests to be good to others so they will be good to you.

Jeffrey Dahmer is actually a really good example of how morality works. If morality is about doing good to others because it's good for you, then Jeffrey Dahmer acted immorally. And what happened to him? He ended up in prison, and came to a very nasty end. Of course, it's quite possible to imagine a person who does devote a life to hurting other people and doesn't suffer any ill consequences, but that doesn't invalidate the system. Quite simply, when you act immorally, increase the chances that the trouble you are spreading in the world will, sooner or later, come back to cause you trouble.

It's perfectly possible to construct a system of morality based on human nature. We don't want pain; we do want happiness. That's what it means to be human. Of course, what causes us pain or happiness varies extremely widely, but that's just a detail to be worked out. It may be a complicated matter to work out, but morality can be complicated sometimes.

Do you have any more objections to a secular system of morality?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So no, your morality is just subjective preference.

So is yours. You have made a value judgement that Yahweh's moral nature ought to be used as your standard. Value judgements are necessarily subjective.

But since you don't have any means of gleaning what Yahweh's moral nature is, your moral philosophy is epistemologically vacuous.

Also, if your criticism of someone's moral philosophy boils down to "it wouldn't convince a sociopath", I have bad news for you - neither would yours.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Jeffrey Dahmer is actually a really good example of how morality works. If morality is about doing good to others because it's good for you, then Jeffrey Dahmer acted immorally. And what happened to him? He ended up in prison, and came to a very nasty end. Of course, it's quite possible to imagine a person who does devote a life to hurting other people and doesn't suffer any ill consequences, but that doesn't invalidate the system. Quite simply, when you act immorally, increase the chances that the trouble you are spreading in the world will, sooner or later, come back to cause you trouble.

He was also "born again" before he died. So if Christianity is true, he's in heaven, while his gay and bisexual murder victims are all burning in hell.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

He was also "born again" before he died. So if Christianity is true, he's in heaven, while his gay and bisexual murder victims are all burning in hell.

Well, exactly!

 

[Ed1wolf]

See? As I said. Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga are apologists. I haven't heard of Nicholas Wolstertorff before, but I imagine he's the same.
Your "arguments" for convincing people of God's existence are really not impressive in the slightest. The proof? Nobody is impressed by them except people who believe in them already.

Uhh no they are not. Just because they are Christian philosophers does not mean that they are professional apologists, try again.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Well of course, in a business setting most people dont talk about the basis for their morality and why they do things.

dm: What kind of an outfit do you work for? At my workplace, we not only explain the rules, but we explain why it is important to follow the rules.

In your work place, do they just give you a list of rules, and never talk about why the rules are important?

I work for the government. Yes, we talk about why the rules in the office are important, but we generally dont talk about why people are moral or immoral.