How did the universe come into existence?

[Dave Ellis]

You could do more than just share food, you could teach them how to gain their own food, which would have more lasting effects, which is the point I'm trying to convey in regards to everlasting effects.

Again, utility, not morality.

In my case, I've never gone hunting, I have next to no experience gardening and I'm a terrible fisherman. I don't have the skills to teach anyone food gathering skills. I can't teach someone to gather food in the wild.

God has and is giving us all we need in order to solve the worlds problems(he's taught some to fish and continues to teach others to fish). So it's not a matter of neglect, but rather time, love and patience.

So if I had expert food gathering skills, and attempted to teach someone how to hunt, but they were struggling with it would it not be better to supply them with all the food I could until they no longer needed it?

 

[Dave Ellis]

So you'd be fine with just giving a man a fish, when you could do him one better by teaching him? There certainly is a moral obligation to do what's best if you can.

If there's a moral obligation to do the best you can, then why has god refrained from doing all he can to fix hunger forever?

Giving us the opportunity to learn is a fine thing, but when millions die of starvation in the meantime only a moral monster would sit back and watch that happen when they have the power to prevent it.

 

[Chriliman]

If there's a moral obligation to do the best you can, then why has god refrained from doing all he can to fix hunger forever?

Giving us the opportunity to learn is a fine thing, but when millions die of starvation in the meantime only a moral monster would sit back and watch that happen when they have the power to prevent it.

I dont believe God allows disobedience and evil, I believe he actively rebukes it and heals the death and suffering it causes by being directly involved in his own creation.

To say all the injustice and suffering we see in the world will not eventually be put to rights, is even more depressing than the thought that God is just sitting back not doing anything about it.

We are here for a reason which is yet to be fully realized and I'm excited to be apart of the solution that God has in mind. I would like to do more.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I dont believe God allows disobedience and evil, I believe he actively rebukes it and heals the death and suffering it causes by being directly involved in his own creation.

To say all the injustice and suffering we see in the world will not eventually be put to rights, is even more depressing than the thought that God is just sitting back not doing anything about it.

We are here for a reason which is yet to be fully realized and I'm excited to be apart of the solution that God has in mind. I would like to do more.

People are starving to death in Africa right now, some of them will actually die. Some tomorrow, some next week, some next month. If god is omnipotent, he would have had the power to ensure those people had food, and he didn't.

If one has a moral obligation to help to the best of their ability, then god failed his moral duties to those people who have died and will die.

The fact you think god may some day give some kind of consolation prize does not excuse his moral negligence in the present day.

Luckily, as there is no reason to suppose such a being exists we don't have to seriously worry about those implications. I enjoy life, and I'm quite lucky to be where I am. Good upbringing, roof over my head, good girlfriend, good friends and family, good job and a stable food supply in one of the best places to live on the planet. I have it better than the vast majority of humans who have ever lived, much less those who are on the planet in the present day. If I believed there was a god, I'd have a lot to be thankful for. But why would I do that? I worked hard to get where I am, and I'm working hard to improve even more. Why would I give credit for my achievements to someone else?

To be honest, given the pain and suffering many go through, I think it's best there is no god. If this is all just nature, then it makes sense. There's no negligence or maliciousness towards those people who are starving to death, it's just how nature is sometimes. If there was an all powerful god sitting up there watching people starve to death and not intervening, that is truly a terrifying thought. What kind of monster would do that?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
See above again this is all based on your subjective feelings about human civilization. Hitler's feelings about preserving Aryan society are no worse than your feelings about your particular society. And yours are no better objectively. They are both based on feelings and sentimentality for certain human societies. How do you determine objectively whose feelings are right?

de: Because the damage that Hitler did to other people, again, can be objectively measured. This isn't rocket science.

Do you not believe Hitler caused objective harm to Jews? If you agree that he did, then you're arguing disingenuously.

Yes, he objectively harmed the jews, I am not disputing that. But his basis for doing so was his strong feelings for his own people and he considered those feelings moral. And the only reason you condemn him for killing jews is your strong feelings against killing fellow humans. Again how do you determine whose feelings are "right" when humans are just another animal and are not anything special according to evolution? And both of you and Hitlers emotions are just chemical reactions in your brain ultimately both created by the same impersonal process of evolution. So why are your chemical reactions deemed "good" and his "bad"?
↑

ed: How does morality come from amoral processes? How can ought come from is? Just because most humans act this way does not mean that we OUGHT to act those ways. Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany provided those things to the majority of their populations and yet you condemn those societies. You have no objectively rational basis for doing so, as I demonstrated above.

de: Terms like good, bad, benefit and harm have definitions. We also have tried and true measures for ways that can improve things for people, or harm people. Helping someone save for retirement, educating them about how investments work and teaching them to be wise with their money is a large benefit. Killing that person when they were healthy and didn't want to die harms that person.

If you want to argue those points, then whatever definition you're using for good and bad don't match the common usage of those words, and therefore we aren't arguing the same thing.

Our argument is about whether there is an objective standard for what is good and bad and what is the source for that standard. It appears that your standard is whatever YOU THINK is good and makes you feel good about human society is the standard for good. And my point is that that standard is just based on emotion and sentimentality for humans and then you try to decide may be by taking a poll on more complex issues like euthanasia and abortion and gay marriage.

de: If we had a society where everyone could kill everyone whenever they wanted, then you'd objectively face a greater risk of being killed. That can be measured. Therefore it's in your best interest to have a society where killing each other is not considered acceptable. In order to create that society, you OUGHT to not kill others. Again, it's not rocket science.

Yes, that is true but what is objectively good about having a human society at all? You appear to be guilty of speciesism.

↑

ed: No, actually the Christians who fought for civil rights for blacks were and it can be proven objectively. The people fighting for the right of people to engage in immoral behavior and not be judged by it, are not orthodox and it can be proven objectively.

de: What is considered orthodox has changed dramatically over the centuries. It will very likely continue to change. What you consider orthodox will be different than what someone else considers orthodox, and therefore it's a subjective label.

No, not among churches and denominations that believe in the infallible authority of the bible, they have pretty much always agreed on the essentials for the last 2000 years.

↑

ed: Fraid so. See just one study here: Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders. People DO have a choice whether to engage in homosexual behavior. And studies have also shown that gay couples have higher rates of domestic violence with lesbian couples having the highest.

de: Of course someone has a choice to engage in homosexual behaviour. That's not the issue. If you choose to have sex with your wife or girlfriend, you are also making a choice to engage in heterosexual behaviour. The issue is attraction, and you don't choose to be attracted to women or men, that is hardwired into your brain.

Actually there is evidence to the contrary. Studies have shown that sexual attraction is a sliding scale not a 1 or 0 switch and that orientation CAN change.

de: As such, if you happen to be someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex, then why would you forego finding a partner just like any straight person would? Should these people be doomed to a life of loneliness just because your book of fables says so?

As I stated above sexual orientation can be changed in many cases and in the cases where it does not change you are not doomed to a life of loneliness. I know and have known many people that have been celibate all their lives and they have lived very happy and fulfilling lives with many very close friends.

 

[quatona]

Obviously an act in of itself is temporal, but it's effects may be permanent.

Yet, when we talk about life (which means constant change), the qualitiy of this effect can´t be permanent. It´s circumstantial and situational.
I can, however, fully understand that you would like there to be some more stability in this complex, ever changing phenomenon "life".

 

[Eudaimonist]

so if you will find such a watch your conclusion will be that its just evolved by a natural process. ok. but as as far as we know any kind of watch is evidence for design.

I don't recognize that as something that "we" (scientists? people in general?) know or claim to know. This is not some uncontroversial truism. It is very much open for debate.

so unless you have a great proof that such a watch can evolve the basic conclusion to my opinion is that this watch was designed.

If this watch has DNA and reproduces, that is an excellent reason to think that it had evolved. Given what science knows about such matters, that is the overwhelmingly reasonable position to take. As I had said, it is also reasonable that there were some cultivation practices as well. An example there would be the banana, which some people mistakenly think is evidence for divine creation, but is actually a result (in the past thousand years or so) of human cultivation, and before that, of unguided evolution.

do you agree that we need a great proof for such a claim and if we have no such a proof the burden of proof is in the side that claiming for a natural cause?

We've got modern science to provide context for such hypotheticals, and that does have great proof. We can't have "great proof" for these specific acts of imagination, because we are dealing with imagination. It is not up to me to prove anything about imagination. All I can do is point to science.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

Yet, when we talk about life (which means constant change), the qualitiy of this effect can´t be permanent. It´s circumstantial and situational.
I can, however, fully understand that you would like there to be some more stability in this complex, ever changing phenomenon "life".

I agree life on earth is ever changing, but this doesn't mean life can't ever reach a constant state of being that doesn't change. It's a faith based belief whether you believe all life will eventually die out forever or that life will continue forever in some prime self-sustaining state of being.

You can withhold belief all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that one or the other must be true and these are things I'd like to have the true answer to.

 

[Chriliman]

People are starving to death in Africa right now, some of them will actually die. Some tomorrow, some next week, some next month. If god is omnipotent, he would have had the power to ensure those people had food, and he didn't.

If one has a moral obligation to help to the best of their ability, then god failed his moral duties to those people who have died and will die.

The fact you think god may some day give some kind of consolation prize does not excuse his moral negligence in the present day.

You really can't conclude that God has failed since God is defined as the creator of life on earth. At best you can conclude he's not done yet or that what he has made/is making has not reached its completed state. Also, scripture makes it clear that God is not omnipotent in that there are things he can't do(at least will not do in order to achieve the best outcome for all). The fullness of that outcome is yet to be seen.

Luckily, as there is no reason to suppose such a being exists we don't have to seriously worry about those implications. I enjoy life, and I'm quite lucky to be where I am. Good upbringing, roof over my head, good girlfriend, good friends and family, good job and a stable food supply in one of the best places to live on the planet. I have it better than the vast majority of humans who have ever lived, much less those who are on the planet in the present day. If I believed there was a god, I'd have a lot to be thankful for. But why would I do that? I worked hard to get where I am, and I'm working hard to improve even more. Why would I give credit for my achievements to someone else?

To be honest, given the pain and suffering many go through, I think it's best there is no god. If this is all just nature, then it makes sense. There's no negligence or maliciousness towards those people who are starving to death, it's just how nature is sometimes. If there was an all powerful god sitting up there watching people starve to death and not intervening, that is truly a terrifying thought. What kind of monster would do that?

From your point of view all beings who experience goodness will eventually cease to exist forever, from my point of view that won't happen. Both points of view are faith based beliefs. You may choose to withhold belief when it comes to the far future, since it'd be faith based, but that doesn't change the fact that one or the other must be true. We all should grapple with this fact. We're meant to grapple with it.

 

[xianghua]

I think he addressed that by saying it would be a "watch like creature".

Either way, I think it goes without saying that the situation you're describing is incredibly unlikely to ever happen.

If your argument essentially boils down to "if this thing which wouldn't ever happen in reality actually happened, then your worldview has a problem", then you don't have a very compelling argument.

Try arguing with something that might impact the real world, then you may have a point worth considering.

again: what about a spinning motor like the atp synthase?

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON


This thread is going to remain permanently closed. While it's lengthy and there has been some good discussion, there are also numerous Statement of Purpose Violations such as: Non-Christians replying, and the original post isn't fully Christian Apologetics. Also the thread has gone pretty off topic and is debating other apologetic other than the original thread purpose. There is some minor flaming at spots as well.


MOD HAT OFF​