How did the universe come into existence?

[Eudaimonist]

lets say that this watch can to all that stuff. can we consider it as a watch

Personally, I would consider it only "watch-like", because to my mind a watch is a human invention. It would only resemble a watch unless I had strong reasons to think that it was actually designed by some intelligent being that desired a time telling device.

if its[sic] a watch then who is having the burden of proof in this case: someone that claim that a watch can evolve naturally, or someone that claim that such a watch need a designer?

Considering that (1) the "watch" is organic and (2) organic entities are known to be evolved, my conclusion is that the designer hypothesis has a heavy burden of proof.

That's assuming that the "watch" reproduces much like other organic beings. If it really does look like someone carved or shaped wood to make a watch, then it would be a watch (if it tells time), but it wouldn't much resemble an organic life form.

When it comes to human beings, the burden of proof is extremely heavy on the design side, since much is already known about human evolution.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
That is a major part of the problem with the world. Those who reject God's law as the standard for good, end up making up their own version of what is good and often end up producing horrible things. Stalin and Mao are two examples of such people who in addition had the power wreak havoc on the whole the planet.

qua: The thing is: Once you declare something a priori as "good", it might turn out to result in horrible things.That´s the problem with authoritarean concepts - be they secular or religious.

No, I am not declaring something a priori good, we know Gods law is good because of all the good things it has brought to the world and also we know it is good because of our own experience with Him has been confirmed good by our consciences.

ed: I don't simply declare Him Good, He has shown Himself to be good in the experiences of millions of Christians.

qu: So - despite your previous claims - in the end it´s your human judgement that you appeal to. Interesting.

Of course that is how we determine any person is good or not, our experience with them. How do you know your spouse or your parents or children are good?

ed: No, since God is the creator of reality then He obviously knows what is morally good in that reality

de: Doesn´t follow. At all.

If you invented and then made a new lawn mower, don't you think you would know what is best for the lawn mower?

ed: Yes, and it is based on evidence as I have stated earlier.

qu: Like, when you appealed to your own subjective judgement and standards?

No, I was referring to the evidence for His existence and His moral characters existence, there is objective evidence for His existence. But the judgement of whether He is good or not IS based on our experience, as I said that is true of all personal relationships.

ed: If something is based on the facts of reality then it objectively exists and is not just an opinion.

qu: Agreed. But that´s not what you said. You said something completely different:
God's moral character exists outside of humanity therefore it exists objectively relative to humans.

This doesn´t follow at all. Are you retracting that statement?

No, that is still a true statement. Both statements are true. If Gods character exists outside of the minds of humans then it is part of objective reality. And His moral law is based on that objective fact.

ed: You have not proven my statement is incorrect.

qu: I have shown that your conclusion didn´t follow.
ed: If something exists outside of human minds and is based on the objective facts of reality then it exists objectively.

qu: Well, now that you have changed your line of reasoning in the middle of the argument:
The first part ("If something exists outside of human minds") is not needed. It´s enough to say: "If something is based on the objective facts of reality then it exists objectively." This, however, is tautologous (see added emphasis).

How is that a tautology? Just because someone uses the same word twice does not make an argument a tautology.

ed: Gods moral laws are similar to His laws of physics/nature.

qu: No, they aren´t. You are just employing a false equivocation of "law".
ed: They are based on the facts of the universe

qu: No. Not even the physical facts of the universe are based on the facts of the universe. That´s just word salad.

No, you are misunderstanding my analogy. I did not say that the facts of the universe are based on the facts of the universe. I am saying that the LAWS of physics are based on the physical facts of the universe and so it with Gods moral laws, they are based on the objective facts of reality.

 

[quatona]

No, I am not declaring something a priori good, we know Gods law is good because of all the good things it has brought to the world and also we know it is good because of our own experience with Him has been confirmed good by our consciences.

So, in the end it´s you and your human valuations that determine that God is good. Which is the very opposite of God being the standard for determining what´s good.
You can´t have the cake and eat it, too.

No, you are misunderstanding my analogy. I did not say that the facts of the universe are based on the facts of the universe. I am saying that the LAWS of physics are based on the physical facts of the universe and so it with Gods moral laws, they are based on the objective facts of reality.

Yeah, that´s a pretty rich word salad.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Fraid not:
"A 2005 study by Priscilla Coleman (Bowling Green University) showed that women who obtained abortions were 144 percent more likely to abuse their own children.

At a more theoretical level, Dr. Philip G. Ney, head of the Department of Psychiatry at Royal Jubilee Hospital in Canada, has outlined why abortion can lead directly to child abuse.

1. Abortion decreases an individual's instinctual restraint against the occasional rage felt toward those dependent on his or her care.

2. Permissive abortion diminishes the taboo against aggressing [against] the defenseless.

3. Abortion increases the hostility between the generations.

4. Abortion has devalued children, thus diminishing the value of caring for children.

5. Abortion increases guilt and self-hatred, which the parent takes out on the child.

6. Abortion increases hostile frustration, intensifying the battle of the sexes, for which children are scapegoated.

7. Abortion cuts the developing mother-infant bond, thereby diminishing her future mothering capability.

Overall, American statistics paint a clear picture. Legal abortion did not reduce child abuse. In fact, the exact opposite happened. The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect has reported that child abuse has increased more than 1,000 percent since the legalization of abortion in 1973. According to data from the US Statistical Abstract, deaths due to child abuse continued to rise after the Roe v. Wade decision and increased by 400 percent between 1972 and 1990."

This Priscilla Coleman you mean? Priscilla K. Coleman - Wikipedia

Try going with the scientific consensus next time instead of one study by one person who's been heavily criticized for using faulty methodology by the actual experts in her field.

Bakers and photographers are being forced in multiple cases in the US to bake cakes endorsing gay marriages and being forced to photograph and film them. Do you think blacks should be forced to bake a birthday cake for the Grand Dragon of the KKK? But you are right gays could get "married" anytime they wanted in the past they did not need the SCOTUS or the government to endorse it so there was no reason for the ruling.

There are some grey areas where I think refusal should be allowed. For example, an independent contractor can refuse business to anyone for whatever reason. That's the nature of being a contractor.

If you're a business open to the public however there are laws in place to protect against discrimination. A "No Gays Allowed" policy is no different than a "No Blacks Allowed" policy.

They are free to get "married". It should just not be endorsed by the government because the behavior is not good for people just like smoking. Also, as I demonstrated earlier with the quotes from the DOI the US was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Those principles are what has made it the greatest nation in history. And people like myself want it to stay great.

1) Why feel the need to put married in quotes?
2) The scientific evidence does not support your case that gay marriage is harmful to anyone, and in fact has the same benefits that anyone would gain from having a spouse. Emotional support, etc.
3) You didn't demonstrate anything earlier, you made claims which I disputed, and were not able to adequately address my criticism.
4) The US is not the greatest nation in history in almost any category, unless you're talking about military power. In almost any quality of life metrics, they're not even the greatest country in the world today.

No, the natural laws and moral laws of this universe were both created by the same Being, so there is a general connection between the two. Though sometimes God is merciful and some people may not acquire a disease but generally they do.

That's ridiculous. We know how biology works. The most moral person in the world is not any more immune to disease than a very immoral person is. It's the situations they get into that may expose them to disease is what matters. You just need some way to transmit bacteria or a virus into a person in order for that disease to spread. That's how biology works.

And when you take care of your body like God commands then your immune system is generally stronger and you are less likely to catch a cold from people.

Not really.... People who take great care of themselves will still get cancer, tuberculosis, measles, whooping cough or any other disease that they get exposed to. That's why we invented vaccines to prevent many types of illnesses, because god's grand design wasn't up to the task.

Yes, He did, His moral laws which He created and revealed in the Bible such as the Ten Commandments and Christs moral teachings are based on His character.

However you said his teachings are based on his character, which he did not create. Therefore the basis for morality exists independently of god. That makes god redundant.

No you are confused. His moral law objectively exists because it is based on His objectively existing moral character. So there is an objective standard that we are judged by. As I stated above it is analogous to the laws of nature or physics.

Yes, but you admitted he didn't create his moral character. If that character is what morality is based upon, that means god did not create morality. It existed independently of god.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Our moral conscience.

You didn't answer my question. Obviously you'd use your moral conscience.

But how did you reach your decision? How would you weigh good from bad when figuring out if god is good? What's your criteria?

 

[Dave Ellis]

if it would be a watch, then why not consider an organic robot a robot?

How would an organic robot be any different than us?

 

[Dave Ellis]

If you invented and then made a new lawn mower, don't you think you would know what is best for the lawn mower?

First off, you're arguing apples and oranges. The lawn mower is something physical whereas morality is more abstract and philosophical.

However, with that point out of the way, no, I very likely would not know what is best for that lawn mower. The Wright Brothers invented and made a new aircraft, does that make the Wright Brothers the experts on modern (and future) aviation? Other people had better ideas, and that's how things progress.

If I came up with a revolutionary new lawn mower, somebody somewhere would almost certainly think of a way to improve upon it before too long.

 

[xianghua]

Personally, I would consider it only "watch-like", because to my mind a watch is a human invention. It would only resemble a watch unless I had strong reasons to think that it was actually designed by some intelligent being that desired a time telling device.

if its very similar to a watch (including springs) then why not consider it as a design product too?

Considering that (1) the "watch" is organic and (2) organic entities are known to be evolved, my conclusion is that the designer hypothesis has a heavy burden of proof.

so if we will have no proof that such a watch can evolve, then your conclusion will be design or you may just say that you dont know?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No, I am not declaring something a priori good, we know Gods law is good because of all the good things it has brought to the world and also we know it is good because of our own experience with Him has been confirmed good by our consciences.

My conscious tells me that a god that drowns babies, when there are alternatives to drowning babies, isn't good. To me.

 

[Eudaimonist]

if its very similar to a watch (including springs) then why not consider it as a design product too?

If this "watch" is organic and reproduces through some DNA-related mechanism, that would be a strong indication that it is not a product of design, at least not solely.

so if we will have no proof that such a watch can evolve, then your conclusion will be design or you may just say that you dont know?

If it is organic, my conclusion is that it is a product of evolution. At worst, it is the product of selective breeding of something that had evolved. That's assuming only the premises that have been mentioned so far.

Are you attempting some sort of argument from incredulity? Watches have an amazing function, therefore God? Human beings have an amazing function, therefore God? That doesn't really fly here. Much is known about evolution, and amazing functions can evolve. That isn't any sort of convincing evidence for God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

You compare her attitude to your subjective human values, standards and criteria.
Is that how you determine that God is good, too?

Well yes in a way, a better way to say it is your experience of her attitude and I would include behavior.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
How do you know that your wife is good?

eud: An evaluation of facts pertaining to human existence and function. Meta-ethically, I'm an ethical naturalist. I suspect that you aren't, so...

How do YOU know that your wife is good? How do YOU know God is good? And, how would GOD know that he is good?
eudaimonia,

Mark

The same way you do. I find out from experience that my wife and God are good. God is goodness personified so He knows He is good because He knows himself omnisciently.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
But Gods moral law is not a belief or opinion. Since He created objective reality, He determined what is objectively good in this reality. See the definition of opinion above. Everything God does and says is based on fact and knowledge.


No.

de: You have a self contradictory position here. On one hand you're claiming god created what is objectively good because of his moral character, however you also claim he didn't create his moral character.

If he didn't create the thing that morality has its objective basis in, then god did not create morality. It exists independently of him, and therefore he's irrelevant to the topic.

That makes no sense, since God created the moral laws of the universe which are based on His objective moral character they have an objective foundation. Your view would be like saying that because the universe is based on His super intelligence and omniscience, then the laws of physics which are based on the operation of the universe were not created by God.

↑

ed: It is not tied to His mind but of course it influences His mind.

de: See above. If it's not a part of his mind and instead only informs his judgments, then it's an independent source to god. The basis of morality is not found within god even if he exists according to your own argument.

No, see my response above. It is part of His being, plainly His being informs His mind and therefore is part of who He is.

↑

ed; But again those are all subjective reasons to care about humans. Ie, your feelings and concern about humans and your own survival. But there is no objective reason to preserve humans if there is no God.

de: Re-read my argument. None of the things I listed are subjective and can be measured independently of personal opinion.

No, you are not going deep enough. You are right the things that will happen to humans if we don't do the things you talk about are real objective consequences that would happen, ie humans would suffer. But I am talking about the big picture. Your whole ethical system is based on the imaginary and subjective belief that human society has value and should be preserved. But if there is no God then human society only has value to other humans, ie there is no objectively rational reason that human society should be preserved and humans treated well. It is all based on sentimental feelings for your own species. There are no real objective reasons to treat humans as if they have intrinsic objective value, but your system acts as if they do but if there is no God then they don't.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That makes no sense, since God created the moral laws of the universe which are based on His objective moral character they have an objective foundation. Your view would be like saying that because the universe is based on His super intelligence and omniscience, then the laws of physics which are based on the operation of the universe were not created by God.

You have said god's moral character (which he did not create) is the basis of morality. I'm not sure where you're having difficulty with this point. If god is not responsible for the objective basis of morality, then he's not responsible for morality.

No, see my response above. It is part of His being, plainly His being informs His mind and therefore is part of who He is.

So he's making subjective moral proclamations based on an objective source he didn't create. You can claim he created his moral opinions, however what those opinions are based on exist independently of god.

If that's the case, then god is redundant. Whatever reasoning god used to reach his conclusions would cause us to reach the same conclusions if we also use the same reasoning. God is not required for morality or a moral code.

No, you are not going deep enough. You are right the things that will happen to humans if we don't do the things you talk about are real objective consequences that would happen, ie humans would suffer. But I am talking about the big picture. Your whole ethical system is based on the imaginary and subjective belief that human society has value and should be preserved. But if there is no God then human society only has value to other humans, ie there is no objectively rational reason that human society should be preserved and humans treated well. It is all based on sentimental feelings for your own species. There are no real objective reasons to treat humans as if they have intrinsic objective value, but your system acts as if they do but if there is no God then they don't.

Of course human society has value to us. We are humans, and we survive in large part to a productive and healthy society. That's also an objective fact.

The existence or non existence of god also doesn't change that fact, therefore again god is made redundant.

 

[quatona]

Well yes in a way, a better way to say it is your experience of her attitude and I would include behavior.

So it would be nonsense to say that she is the standard for being good or the basis for morality, since you are using standards other than hers to judge her.

 

[quatona]

But I am talking about the big picture.

It´s more like you are claiming that there´s a "big picture" in which a problem can be solved that doesn´t exist without this "big picture".
Basically all you are saying is "Without a God there isn´t a God". We can agree on that.

Your whole ethical system is based on the imaginary and subjective belief that human society has value and should be preserved.

Not really. When something has value to someone, it has value. Period. That´s what "value" means when I use this word. It isn´t imaginary (even though certainly subjective or, at best, intersubjective or universally agreed upon).
You know, your whole ethical system is based on the subjective (and possibly imaginary?) belief that a. there´s a God and b. that this God´s subjective opinion on morals is authoritative.
Neither you nor I can escape our subjectivity (no matter how much we might appeal to some putative objective standard that we believe in).

But if there is no God then human society only has value to other humans,

Yes, sure. You almost make it sound like that´s a problem.

ie there is no objectively rational reason that human society should be preserved and humans treated well.

So what?
We don´t need no stinkin´ "objective rational reason" for caring for each other and our environment.
(Let alone the fact that with a God we don´t have an objective reason either - but only an appeal to a subjective non-human view. Plus, simply declaring something to be an objective standard isn´t rational, either).

It is all based on sentimental feelings for your own species.

...plus for other species and our environment. You don´t pee in the pool you are swimming in - it´s as simple and rational as that. You are free to call that "sentimental", though.

There are no real objective reasons to treat humans as if they have intrinsic objective value,

Indeed - I agree. We care for ourselves and the world we live in - that´s good enough for me.I don´t need no "objective" (i.e. non-human) standard for abstaining from hitting myself with a hammer on the head. Knowing what the consequences are of doing that is sufficient. There´s nothing imaginary about that.
I acknowledge that this isn´t good enough for you, and that you wish for something outside of humanity that prevents you from damaging yourself, others and the system that your well-being depends on.
If you actually could demonstrate that such exists, we could start figuring this entity into our considerations. Until then, all you bring to the table is wishful thinking (based on your "sentimental feelings), plus an argument from consequence (in which the consequence is just undesirable, based on your subjective desires).

but your system acts as if they do

No, it doesn´t. This is but you projecting your system upon mine.
In my system, when I use the word "value", it doesn´t imply any "objectivity".

 

[Eudaimonist]

The same way you do. I find out from experience that my wife and God are good.

I use experience, yes, but differently than you do. Please don't tell me that they are the same process.

God is goodness personified so He knows He is good because He knows himself omnisciently.

That is a non-answer and entirely circular. "God knows that he is good because he would know."

Experience is good, but does not explain precisely what in one's experience one finds good, and how one forms the standard of evaluation to judge someone as good.

While it may seem that you are doing this, you really aren't. You're begging the question. You haven't explained precisely what God "knows omnisciently" about himself that allows him to confidently believe that he is "goodness personified". You state the conclusion without explaining the justification.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

You have said god's moral character (which he did not create) is the basis of morality. I'm not sure where you're having difficulty with this point. If god is not responsible for the objective basis of morality, then he's not responsible for morality.



So he's making subjective moral proclamations based on an objective source he didn't create. You can claim he created his moral opinions, however what those opinions are based on exist independently of god.

If that's the case, then god is redundant. Whatever reasoning god used to reach his conclusions would cause us to reach the same conclusions if we also use the same reasoning. God is not required for morality or a moral code.



Of course human society has value to us. We are humans, and we survive in large part to a productive and healthy society. That's also an objective fact.

The existence or non existence of god also doesn't change that fact, therefore again god is made redundant.

Actually, only with an immortal God does goodness last forever, which is objectively better than goodness not lasting forever. You can oppose this objective truth all you want, but that won't make it go away.

In your Godless paradigm, goodness must come to an end because no one lives forever, which is an objectively bad thing.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Actually, only with an immortal God does goodness last forever, which is objectively better than goodness not lasting forever. You can oppose this objective truth all you want, but that won't make it go away.

In your Godless paradigm, goodness must come to an end because no one lives forever, which is an objectively bad thing.

I'm not sure how you can justify that statement.

First off, you haven't demonstrated this goodness lasts forever, you've only asserted it does. Secondly, how does a measure of time affect the intrinsic morality of an action? If you carry out a good act which has good repercussions for 100 years, that doesn't make it any more or less moral than an act that would have good repercussions for 1000 years.

You could argue there's greater long term benefits to the 1000 year act, however that doesn't make the 100 year act less moral or less ethical, especially if the 100 year act was the best someone could do. The time span is completely irrelevant ethically.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm not sure how you can justify that statement.

First off, you haven't demonstrated this goodness lasts forever, you've only asserted it does. Secondly, how does a measure of time affect the intrinsic morality of an action? If you carry out a good act which has good repercussions for 100 years, that doesn't make it any more or less moral than an act that would have good repercussions for 1000 years.

You could argue there's greater long term benefits to the 1000 year act, however that doesn't make the 100 year act less moral or less ethical, especially if the 100 year act was the best someone could do. The time span is completely irrelevant ethically.

I agree that goodness is inherently good. I'm arguing that goodness that lasts forever(always experienceable) is objectively better than goodness that ends(never to be experienced again by anyone).