Does morality exist without God?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bombila

Veteran
Nov 28, 2006
3,474
445
✟13,256.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
For those who want to "discuss" Christianity with 3sigma, here is a translation of his rhetoric. Reasonable absolutely means rejecting any belief in God or a divine being. Single shred of evidence absolutely means it must be able to be recreated in a laboratory using test tubes.



Yes, you stopped asking the "questions" and mysteriously disappeared for a while. I take it you again wanted to satiate your appetite for the denigration of Christians? Back to conduct more laboratory experiments?



Take 50 cc of substance "Communicating with God" and add 50 cc of substance "Christian privilege." Shake. Warm over Bunsen burner for ten minutes. Resulting substance is Special Privilege of Christians to Communicate with God.



See above directions. Repeat.

I don't think test tubes and bunsen burners is what 3sigma has been asking for.

You have to understand that many non believers began as sincere and even passionate Christians, yet failed (sometimes after many years) to have any of the mysterious experiences many Christians claim - main one being communication with God, such that the individual recognises that it is in fact God communicating with them, and not their imagination.

3sigma reasons that to facilitate this factual communication, Christians must develop a new kind of sense, a sixth sense, and since we are physical creatures, such a change should leave identifiable physical traces, probably in the brain, which are not replicated by known neurological phenomena.

It's a perfectly logical reponse, a request for some kind of evidence supporting Christian claims.

Failing that, consider that there are sects of Christianity which do recognise a difference, although they are no better at explaining it or proving it than you and razeontherock. Calvinism addresses this in a roundabout way by postulating most humans, including most Christians, however passionate their belief, are essentially chaff, debris intended by God from the beginning to be fuel to the fire.

Now consider that if that is true, it is and always will be impossible for most of us to have the experience you claim because God is not interested in providing it.

Now don't you feel mean?
 
Upvote 0

3sigma

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2008
2,339
72
✟3,007.00
Faith
Atheist
Reasonable absolutely means rejecting any belief in God or a divine being. Single shred of evidence absolutely means it must be able to be recreated in a laboratory using test tubes.
On the contrary, reasonable means being in accordance with reason, which is the power of comprehending, inferring or thinking especially in orderly, rational ways. I notice you’ve omitted the salient qualifier ‘sound’ from my requests for sound evidence or sound arguments. Sound evidence is evidence free from errors, fallacies or misapprehensions. Sound arguments are arguments that are logically valid and have true premises. I see you’ve provided neither in your response.

Yes, you stopped asking the "questions" and mysteriously disappeared for a while.
I took a break from this site because I became thoroughly disgusted by the evasiveness of Christians here. After a while away, my disgust faded so I returned, but it’s building again and I may take another break soon. I have far better things to do with my time than trying to convince Christians to stop behaving evasively. Never mind, though, you may only have to evade my questions for a few more days anyway. According to the fantasy of some Christians, we non-believers begin five months of torment on May 21.

Take 50 cc of substance "Communicating with God" and add 50 cc of substance "Christian privilege." Shake. Warm over Bunsen burner for ten minutes. Resulting substance is Special Privilege of Christians to Communicate with God.
As expected, you evaded the questions and failed to provide reasonable answers. Speaking of embarrassment, aren’t you the least bit embarrassed at having constantly to behave so evasively?
 
Upvote 0

3sigma

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2008
2,339
72
✟3,007.00
Faith
Atheist
Funny word, that "reasonable." Something you can't understand, is not reasonable to you. Which in no way makes it unreasonable, nor any less true. And here we have it, that unless you are born again, you cannot even see the Kingdom of God; although it's still within your reach.
Religious nonsense isn’t unreasonable only to me; it’s unreasonable to a great many people. Beliefs are unreasonable if they not in accordance with reason. Evidence isn’t sound if it is riddled with errors, fallacies and misapprehensions. Arguments aren’t sound unless they are logically valid and have true premises. Religious beliefs comply with none of those requirements. For example, look at your arguments above.
 
Upvote 0

Tzaousios

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός
Dec 4, 2008
8,504
609
Comitatus in praesenti
Visit site
✟19,229.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't think test tubes and bunsen burners is what 3sigma has been asking for.

No, it is. Do not expect him to admit it, either.

Bombila said:
You have to understand that many non believers began as sincere and even passionate Christians, yet failed (sometimes after many years) to have any of the mysterious experiences many Christians claim - main one being communication with God, such that the individual recognises that it is in fact God communicating with them, and not their imagination.

Yes, so?

Bombila said:
3sigma reasons that to facilitate this factual communication, Christians must develop a new kind of sense, a sixth sense, and since we are physical creatures, such a change should leave identifiable physical traces, probably in the brain, which are not replicated by known neurological phenomena.

This is a valiant effort at covering for 3sigma. However, there are some of us here who are quite aware of his game. Its novelty has worn off.

Bombila said:
It's a perfectly logical reponse, a request for some kind of evidence supporting Christian claims.

Right - break out the test tubes and the Bunsen burner. He does not want "some kind of evidence" but a very specific, presupposed kind.

Bombila said:
Calvinism addresses this in a roundabout way by postulating most humans, including most Christians, however passionate their belief, are essentially chaff, debris intended by God from the beginning to be fuel to the fire.

Who said anything about Calvinism? This is a big, fat red herring.

Bombila said:
Now consider that if that is true, it is and always will be impossible for most of us to have the experience you claim because God is not interested in providing it.

Suit yourself. I am sorry that you must rationalize it in this way.

Bombila said:
Now don't you feel mean?

No, not at all.
 
Upvote 0

Tzaousios

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός
Dec 4, 2008
8,504
609
Comitatus in praesenti
Visit site
✟19,229.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I notice you’ve omitted the salient qualifier ‘sound’ from my requests for sound evidence or sound arguments. Sound evidence is evidence free from errors, fallacies or misapprehensions.

My most sincere apologies. Single shred of sound evidence absolutely means it must be able to be recreated in a laboratory using test tubes.

3sigma said:
Sound arguments are arguments that are logically valid and have true premises. I see you’ve provided neither in your response.

What do you mean? I provided scientifically falsifiable, sound, reasonable evidence by the experiment that I conducted for you in a laboratory using two tangible substances, test tubes, and a Bunsen burner.

3sigma said:
I took a break from this site because I became thoroughly disgusted by the evasiveness of Christians here. After a while away, my disgust faded so I returned, but it’s building again and I may take another break soon.

Oh, the audacity of those stupid, irrational Christian fools, biting the hand of the one who feeds them and knows what is best for them! It is a difficult occupation bringing enlightenment and denigration to the religious ignorant.

3sigma said:
I have far better things to do with my time than trying to convince Christians to stop behaving evasively.

Better things such as finding easier prey for whom you can try to induce an abyss experience and denigrate?

3sigma said:
Speaking of embarrassment, aren’t you the least bit embarrassed at having constantly to behave so evasively?

No, not at all, because I have not evaded anything. You have employed your rhetoric in order to throw up the ruse that there is some positive response that a Christian could give you.

You deny left and right when your true motives are revealed. Nevertheless, at the heart of it is your presupposition that God does not exist, cannot exist, that Christians are deluded fools, and that no evidence other than that which can be recreated in a scientific laboratory is acceptable to you. Your game is up, 3sigma.
 
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Beliefs are unreasonable if they not in accordance with reason.

I would say that would make them not reasonable, not unreasonable. To be unreasonable they'd have to go counter to reason. Some beliefs are neither supported by reason nor contradicted by reason (eg whether the universe is flat, hyperbolic, or closed).

Arguments aren’t sound unless they are logically valid and have true premises. Religious beliefs comply with none of those requirements.

You don't know that the premises of religious arguments are not true. And you don't know whether the premises of any given argument are true (eg, all of science; I've yet to see anyone show that the universe is objective and consistent). The only premise you do know is true is the tautology.
 
Upvote 0

Bombila

Veteran
Nov 28, 2006
3,474
445
✟13,256.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Leaving 3sigma out of it...

...

Who said anything about Calvinism? This is a big, fat red herring.

No it isn't. Calvinism offers a stark explanation for people who don't have religious experiences. It's no more scientifially provable than "You must be born again", but it's considerably less frustrating, as at least it's coherent.

Suit yourself. I am sorry that you must rationalize it in this way.

It isn't my rationalisation. I think they're as likely to be wrong as anyone else, including myself. But it has a nice logical beat to it.

No, not at all.

It's tough to get a little sympathy from Christians these days. :(
 
Upvote 0

Tzaousios

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός
Dec 4, 2008
8,504
609
Comitatus in praesenti
Visit site
✟19,229.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No it isn't. Calvinism offers a stark explanation for people who don't have religious experiences. It's no more scientifially provable than "You must be born again", but it's considerably less frustrating, as at least it's coherent.

Alright. What is your point, still? Although you are using "Calvinism" here as a rhetorical device, I highly doubt that you look positively upon it or consider it a viable form of Christianity.

Bombila said:
It isn't my rationalisation. I think they're as likely to be wrong as anyone else, including myself. But it has a nice logical beat to it.

Yes, and...?

Bombila said:
It's tough to get a little sympathy from Christians these days.

Forgive me for being so cynical, but I do not think you were looking for sympathy from Christians. I am willing to be shown otherwise, though.
 
Upvote 0

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,545
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
3sigma reasons that to facilitate this factual communication, Christians must develop a new kind of sense, a sixth sense, and since we are physical creatures, such a change should leave identifiable physical traces,

This is actually a reasonable post. Thank you for that! The problem w/ the OP's speculation is he fails to account for the fact that what is under discussion is Spiritual, not physical; therefore our communication attempts are frustrated, and will remain so until this is understood.

Failing that, consider that there are sects of Christianity which do recognise a difference, although they are no better at explaining it or proving it than you and razeontherock. Calvinism addresses this in a roundabout way by postulating most humans, including most Christians, however passionate their belief, are essentially chaff, debris intended by God from the beginning to be fuel to the fire.

That sect is great at fabricating plausible explanations for otherwise unexplainable phenomena, but not so good at adhering to Biblical Truth. You should see what happens when their proponents advance their ideas among Orthodox Christians :doh: Do the words "recoil in horror" mean anything to you?
 
Upvote 0

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,545
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So what you're saying is that the ability to see the Kingdom of God, is a purely spiritual thing and not something able to be deduced via reason from non-spiritual things?

No, I didn't say that. Jesus always taught Spiritual things via natural things His audience was familiar with, and never separated the 2.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,545
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Calvinism offers a stark explanation for people who don't have religious experiences. It's no more scientifially provable than "You must be born again", but it's considerably less frustrating, as at least it's coherent.

Translate this to read: but i don't wanna have to seek God with my whole heart!
 
Upvote 0

3sigma

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2008
2,339
72
✟3,007.00
Faith
Atheist
Single shred of sound evidence absolutely means it must be able to be recreated in a laboratory using test tubes.
No, it doesn’t. It simply means that it shouldn’t be riddled with errors, fallacies or misapprehensions. Can you offer anything more than strawman arguments? Can you actually provide any sound evidence or sound arguments to support your belief that your God is real? If you can then please stop evading the requests and do so.

Oh, the audacity of those stupid, irrational Christian fools, biting the hand of the one who feeds them and knows what is best for them! It is a difficult occupation bringing enlightenment and denigration to the religious ignorant.
Really? Are Christians stupid, irrational, foolish and ignorant? I don’t recall ever having said that. Can you show me where I have said that? All I said was that they evade questions. I’ve also said that religious believers cannot provide any sound evidence or sound arguments to support their belief that their God is real. Your responses only help to confirm those statements.

No, not at all, because I have not evaded anything.
In that case, please provide enough sound evidence and sound arguments to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Christians possess some faculty that allows only them to communicate with their God. Please provide sound evidence and sound arguments to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your God is even real. Will you be true to your word or will you evade those requests? Let’s see.

You deny left and right when your true motives are revealed. Nevertheless, at the heart of it is your presupposition that God does not exist, cannot exist, that Christians are deluded fools, and that no evidence other than that which can be recreated in a scientific laboratory is acceptable to you.
I don’t believe your God exists in the same way you don’t believe the modern-day Santa Claus exists. How would you describe a person who steadfastly maintains highly implausible beliefs without any sound evidence or sound arguments to support them? I will accept evidence that isn’t riddled with errors, fallacies or misapprehensions and arguments that are logically valid and have true premises if, of course, you would provide them instead of constantly evading requests to do so.
 
Upvote 0

3sigma

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2008
2,339
72
✟3,007.00
Faith
Atheist
I would say that would make them not reasonable, not unreasonable. To be unreasonable they'd have to go counter to reason. Some beliefs are neither supported by reason nor contradicted by reason (eg whether the universe is flat, hyperbolic, or closed).
Unreasonable beliefs are those that are not conformable to reason. For example, the belief that a person could come back to life after being dead for three days and beginning to decompose or the belief that a grown man can walk unaided on the sea are beliefs that are not conformable to reason.

You don't know that the premises of religious arguments are not true. And you don't know whether the premises of any given argument are true (eg, all of science; I've yet to see anyone show that the universe is objective and consistent). The only premise you do know is true is the tautology.
It is up to the person making the argument to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the premises are true. Of course, if you are going to retreat into solipsism then there is no point in continuing the discussion, but you wouldn’t do that, would you?
 
Upvote 0

Tzaousios

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός
Dec 4, 2008
8,504
609
Comitatus in praesenti
Visit site
✟19,229.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Really? Are Christians stupid, irrational, foolish and ignorant? I don’t recall ever having said that. Can you show me where I have said that?

How kind and charitable of you not explicitly to use those words. I stand corrected on that point!

3sigma said:
Please provide sound evidence and sound arguments to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your God is even real.

Why would I apostasize or confess atheism since I am not an apostate or an atheist? What is more, why would I willingly confirm your presupposition and provide fodder for your denigration game?

3sigma said:
Will you be true to your word or will you evade those requests? Let’s see.

I did not evade anything and have remained true to my purpose. Also, I never promised you anything, nor did I declare that I had a desire to fulfill what you rhetorically call mere "requests."

3sigma said:
I don’t believe your God exists in the same way you don’t believe the modern-day Santa Claus exists.

Thank you for stating your presupposition. Now there definitely is no reason for anyone to fulfill your rhetorical "requests."

3sigma said:
How would you describe a person who steadfastly maintains highly implausible beliefs without any sound evidence or sound arguments to support them?

Since here you mean Christians, the question is not applicable. Nevertheless, it is a rhetorical question designed to make a statement. At any rate, I know what you would implicitly call them, as I stated above.

3sigma said:
I will accept evidence that isn’t riddled with errors, fallacies or misapprehensions and arguments that are logically valid and have true premises if, of course, you would provide them instead of constantly evading requests to do so.

Translation of rhetoric: You will accept,

1. Apostasy
2. Confession of atheism
3. Religious belief scientifically recreated in a test tube
 
Upvote 0

Bombila

Veteran
Nov 28, 2006
3,474
445
✟13,256.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
This is actually a reasonable post. Thank you for that! The problem w/ the OP's speculation is he fails to account for the fact that what is under discussion is Spiritual, not physical; therefore our communication attempts are frustrated, and will remain so until this is understood.



That sect is great at fabricating plausible explanations for otherwise unexplainable phenomena, but not so good at adhering to Biblical Truth. You should see what happens when their proponents advance their ideas among Orthodox Christians :doh: Do the words "recoil in horror" mean anything to you?

Tbh, I recoiled in horror myself when first encountering Calvinist doctrine. I've since investigated more thoroughly and had some interesting conversations with scholarly Calvinists, and while it's still a rather horrifying set of beliefs about God, it appears pretty consistent with the scriptural passages they use to back up their theology.

But you see to an agnostic like myself, with a great curiousity about religions, Calvinist doctrine appears no less believable than what you call orthodox Christian doctrine. Christianity is very good at creating sects and denominations, all of which differ in one part or another, small or great, of their scriptural interpretation. And as I pointed out, Calvinism at least has the advantage of plainly stating the horror which is at the centre of most Christianity, the doctrine of hell and its relationship to God's holiness, and the expectation that most people are destined (and perhaps predestined) for eternal punishment.

The doctrine that leaves one fervently praying and passionately worshipping, perhaps for one's whole life, in hopes of achieving that 'born again' state of communication you blithely describe as 'spiritual' is deeply frustrating and creates desperate uncertainty and anxiety.

It's difficult to even understand what exactly is meant by 'spiritual'. My self, I experience physical, mental, and emotional states, all of which interact and affect each other. That's it. There is no 'other' state I need a label for. So what is 'spiritual'? How would I recognise it? How distinguish it from emotion, intellect or even indigestion, (to reference Scrooge)?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
So what you're saying is that the ability to see the Kingdom of God, is a purely spiritual thing and not something able to be deduced via reason from non-spiritual things?
No, I didn't say that. Jesus always taught Spiritual things via natural things His audience was familiar with, and never separated the 2.

So you can show 3sigma the Kingdom of God via natural things?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
It is up to the person making the argument to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the premises are true.

Feel free to prove anytime that the universe is objective and consistent as required for the scientific method to be applicable.

Of course, if you are going to retreat into solipsism then there is no point in continuing the discussion, but you wouldn’t do that, would you?

Why not? My ability to think is not bound to only things that I (pretend to) know. I can do Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry just as well whether or not I believe the premises to be true. Why should I be required to pretend to know things that I can't justify or prove?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.