Where's God?

Ed1wolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Ed1wolf said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Ed1wolf said:

You cant prove anything you say either.

Click to expand...

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.

Ed1wolf said:

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?

Click to expand...

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. 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? NDEs? People having dreams. So what?

Ed1wolf said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Ed1wolf said:

There is no such right as I proved earlier.

Click to expand...

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.

Ed1wolf said:

No, just take that one little step in logic and you will know the cause of the universe.

Click to expand...

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.

Ed1wolf said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Ed1wolf said:

The same way I know my physical senses are reliable.

Click to expand...

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?

Ed1wolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Ed1wolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.
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?

Ed1wolf 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Ed1wolf said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Ed1wolf said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Ed1wolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

There's nothing arbitrary about it. It's a perfectly rational explanation to exclude the supernatural from science. The supernatural cannot be proven, cannot be demonstrated, and has no effect on the real world. 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."

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.

doubtingmerle said:

ed; No, because how do you know what living a good life is? You just have a subjective feeling about what the good life is. And someone else has a feeling about what the good life is, how do you determine what the good life is?

dm: I choose to live what I call a good life. If you are going to go back to saying that you, and only you, have the correct definitions for English words, then I will use a different word. I choose to live a xxzzia life. By xxzzia life I mean a fulfilling, satisfying life that does good for others and makes me feel good. That is the life I choose.

Click to expand...

Exactly, basing goodness on feelings means it can mean anything. Thanks for making my point. Jeffrey Dahmer believed he was living a good life too because his understanding of good was based on feelings also.

ed; There has to be an objective standard of what the good life is. And if God exists, then there is an objective standard.

dm: Let's do a thought experiment. Let us say there is a completely different universe created by a different creator. That universe has many happy beings like us that are living what they consider to be a fulfilling life. Along comes one who claims to be their creator and states that he gets to decide what is a good life for everybody. He demands that they do whatever he tells them to do, regardless of what they personally think. Must they abandon their lives as they know them, and do what this voice tells them is objectively good? Why or why not?

Click to expand...

It depends on what whether the creator is good or not. If the creator is not good, then you should not do what He says.

ed: Also, without God you have no way of knowing objectively what fairness is and what justice is and why we should limit injustice and unfairness.

dm; I think I have emphasized that fairness is subjective. Different people have different ideas of fairness. Is it fair to give women more maternity leave then men? Is it fair to give descendants of slaves money to compensate for missed opportunity? How much? Is it fair to force businesses to sell cakes to somebody they disagree with?

Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for admitting that.

dm: When faced with such questions, my solution has been to talk it out and try to find a solution that is best for all. Generally democratically elected legislatures are the best way to do this for large countries.

Although it is not always easy to determine what is fair, sometimes it is obvious. The Holocaust obviously was not fair to the Jews. Can we stipulate that this is true? Can we both agree that, in spite of our differences, that the Holocaust was not fair to the Jews?

Click to expand...

Of course, but you have no objective basis for making that decision.

ed: I demonstrated earlier why sin is not really a finite wrong.

While there is overlap there is a difference between sin and crime.

dm: I see that none of these statements address the point you were replying to, so I will just repeat it again:
I believe in limited punishment. If a person steals, there should be punishment sufficient that he knows he did not get away with it, and that others can see that thievery is not the best way to get what they want. That kind of punishment has a purpose.

Click to expand...

Only if we were not eternal beings and our actions do not have eternal consequences.

dm: But eternal torment in fire with no possibility of an end? What can be the purpose of that?
Would you please address that question?

Click to expand...

Actually most scholars believe that torment in fire is rabbinic hyperbole. Fire is a symbol of severe suffering not meant to be taken literally. But see above about why it is eternal.

You said to @doubtingmerle :

Ed1wolf said:

Exactly, basing goodness on feelings means it can mean anything. Thanks for making my point. Jeffrey Dahmer believed he was living a good life too because his understanding of good was based on feelings also.

Click to expand...

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:

Ed1wolf 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Ed1wolf said:

It depends on what whether the creator is good or not. If the creator is not good, then you should not do what He says.

Click to expand...

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."

Ed1wolf said:

Only if we were not eternal beings and our actions do not have eternal consequences.

Click to expand...

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

doubtingmerle said:

ed: There are two types of evolution theistic and atheistic, and only theistic evolution has a rational basis.
dm: If theistic evolution has a rational basis, why do you not accept theistic evolution?

Click to expand...

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

dm: If I remember correctly, your stated view is that there were millions of different creation events involving a suspension of natural laws to pop new species into existence out of nothing. The first zebra, for instance would have popped into existence many thousands of years after the first eohippus. It popped suddenly out of nothing, in complete violation of the laws of thermodynamics. If this is not your view, please clarify what your view is, and why you think it is rational.

Click to expand...

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: What is irrational about atheistic evolution?

Click to expand...

It claims that life, language, and love came from the random motion of subatomic particles.

ed: Not only is it rational to believe that only persons can produce the personal but such production has been empirically observed for all of human history while impersonal producing the personal has never been empirically observed.

dm: People don't really produce people. Their bodies produce egg and sperm cells that have partial copies of their DNA with variations. The egg and sperm combine, yielding a fertilized egg with a new set of DNA. That new DNA guides the cell to divide and eventually form into a new, cognitively aware person.

Click to expand...

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

dm: Since the DNA is constantly changing with each generation, why can it not be that our DNA is a result of that process of constantly changing DNA that started from an animal that clearly was not homo sapiens?

Click to expand...

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

doubtingmerle said:

You write this in response to:

The problem is that you and Athanasius teach something that, to me, is identical to believing in three gods which are of one substance, but you refuse to admit it. If your view is different from the three gods of one substance view, please tell us how your view differs.​

Over and over you tell me you disagree with the view that there are three gods that share one essence. When I ask you how your view differs from the view that you disagree with, you cannot tell me.

That is my point. Your view appears to be identical to the view that you disagree with. Even you cannot come up with a single way in which the two views differ.

If it looks like a duck, if it sounds like a duck, if it acts like a duck, then it just might be a duck.

Click to expand...

Scholars have tried to fully explain the Trinity for close to 2000 years, but no one has been able to. This is actually evidence that the Christian God is not manmade, most man made religions can explain everything about their god.

doubtingmerle said:

Again, what you need to show is that a person with innate homosexual desires would be better off if he does not find a way to fulfill those desires. You have not done that. I would think that remaining in the closet and not being true to yourself would be harmful to one's mental health.

Click to expand...

He would not have all those illnesses that the study refers to, that would certainly be better off dont you think? I am sure that alcoholics and pedophiles think that they are not being true to themselves either when they are not allowed to engage in their preferred behavior. But ultimately they are improving themselves by refrainng which should be the goal for all of us, right?

doubtingmerle said:

As @InterestedAtheist put it, this is sheer delusion. I prefer to live in the real world.

Click to expand...

I will take that as an unable to refute.

muichimotsu said:

ed: There are two types of evolution theistic and atheistic, and only theistic evolution has a rational basis.

mm: Prove it, a bald assertion is just that, especially when you also create a needless division that isn't justified beyond people asserting a creator they cannot substantiate by scientific means and thus the whole idea is thoroughly unscientific and exploiting actual science to advance religious fundamentalism

Click to expand...

Those are the two majority views of evolution. If you can name another popular view of evolution, I am all ears. Yes, God can be shown to probably exist by scientific means. See my post to interested atheist about the BB theory and the law of causality.

ed: Not only is it rational to believe that only persons can produce the personal but such production has been empirically observed for all of human history while impersonal producing the personal has never been empirically observed

mm: You're confusing intelligence with intelligibility, we can find intelligibility in an anthill or a beehive, but we don't assume ants and bees have human intelligence, do we? The intelligibility of the universe or us is not the same as intelligence in itself, but you seem to just conflate intelligence with the "personal", which is oversimplifying the discussion greatly.

Click to expand...

Ants and bees do have a very simple form of intelligence similar to computers which is expected since they also are created by an intelligent being. But both the creator and humans are more than just an intelligence. A personal being also has emotions, and a moral conscience. Such things cannot be produced by the random motions of atoms.

mm: This whole thing is a compositional fallacy: the fact that the cells comprising us don't have individual intelligence doesn't mean they cannot combine and make an emergent property of intelligence and consciousness that we experience, just like the individual parts of a chemical process that creates combustion are not combustion itself, but they can combine to enact such a thing.

You're making a strawman of what science says about intelligence in the first place and extrapolating from there about your imagined creator you have not and likely cannot substantiate in any way beyond rationalizations and fallacious inferences.

Click to expand...

You are free to believe that random motions of atoms can produce things such as language, love and life, but it is more rational to believe that such things came from pre-existing forms of these things.

mm: Oh and your biggest error is the idea that the personal has been the only thing attributed to a person, because we can find plenty of examples of the impersonal aspects of nature attributed to persons (gods), including your own God who supposedly is sovereign over all things, which includes unintelligent inanimate things like rocks and chemicals. So you've really just created a massive contradiction in the idea that your creator somehow is only responsible for the personal when by your own admission, they HAVE to be responsible for the impersonal as well.

Click to expand...

Of course, if you can create the most complex things in the known universe, persons, you certainly can create much simpler things, like rocks and chemicals.

mm: The idea of the impersonal generating the personal is basic emergent and supervenient properties of biological processes, which are distinct from mechanical properties we'd see elsewhere, though even that can create complexity, like snowflakes or sand dunes, but you want intentionality, seemingly, so you try to suggest without any evidence to support your claim that we don't have any reason to think that the impersonal can make the personal, with a gross misunderstanding of scientific empiricism as well, because evolution is concluded not merely because we can see speciation with insects and the like in the lab, but observations that have consistent measurements that go back eons.

Click to expand...

Macroevolution is an unwarranted historical extrapolation. How do you make observations and measurements in the deep past?

Ed1wolf said:

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

Click to expand...

You're half right. It doesn't fit the theological evidence better, but it sure does fit the scientific evidence better.

Ed1wolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

Begging the question fallacy. Your argument assumes that God exists.

Ed1wolf said:

It claims that life, language, and love came from the random motion of subatomic particles.

Click to expand...

Yes? What's wrong with that?

Ed1wolf said:

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

Click to expand...

Does it?
Why?

Ed1wolf said:

Scholars have tried to fully explain the Trinity for close to 2000 years, but no one has been able to. This is actually evidence that the Christian God is not manmade, most man made religions can explain everything about their god.

Click to expand...

And after all that time you spent on this thread telling us it was simple and you'd be happy to explain it to us?
You're right, of course. Nobody has been able to make sense of the doctrine of the Trinity, because it doesn't make sense.

Ed1wolf said:

He would not have all those illnesses that the study refers to, that would certainly be better off dont you think? I am sure that alcoholics and pedophiles think that they are not being true to themselves either when they are not allowed to engage in their preferred behavior. But ultimately they are improving themselves by refrainng which should be the goal for all of us, right?

Click to expand...

I'd like to answer you, but it would be breaking forum rules to do so.
I thought I ought to make you aware of that. We've mentioned it before, but you might not know that the rules could very well apply to an answer to this particular question.

Ed1wolf said:

I will take that as an unable to refute.

Click to expand...

Perhaps we've just got bored with refuting you? We do it an awful lot, and you don't seem to get much benefit from it.

Ed1wolf said:

You are free to believe that random motions of atoms can produce things such as language, love and life, but it is more rational to believe that such things came from pre-existing forms of these things.

Click to expand...

Why?

doubtingmerle said:

Instead of playing Where's Waldo, let's play Where's God. In the picture below, where's God?

Click to expand...

In the hearts of the people.

Ed1wolf said:

How do you make observations and measurements in the deep past?

Click to expand...

If I told you I would have to put up with your studied indifference and contemptuous dismissal. Why would I want to go through that again?

muichimotsu said:

It has several meanings and that's kind of how language works, which you appear to have a more prescriptive notion rather than the far more honest descriptivist idea that language is not set in stone, it necessarily shifts, especially by context

Click to expand...

The definitions I am using is mostly 1a with some 2a and b thrown in. I am not denying that humans are fallible and inject some subjectivity into language, though its foundation is set in stone, ie the language of the triune God which only occurs between members of the Godhead but is the objective origin and foundation of our language.

mm: The 1st definition listed is more epistemological and cannot be perfect, given our fallible nature in not being able to eliminate our biases entirely.

While the 2nd grouping of definitions tends to be metaphysical, ontological or some relation thereof, speaking about the nature of things rather than how we assess them as being justified in conclusions we make (moral, metaphysical, etc, all tying back to epistemology, which technically would be on the foundation of logic)

1a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

2a : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind objective reality
b : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
d : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy

So...what definition are you using and are you just throwing out the others to stick with just one instead of being *Gasp* flexible?

Click to expand...

See above.

mm: The basis of Kant's categorical imperative in regards to necessarily needing to treat humans not merely as means, but as ends in themselves. Stalinist Communism, along with other manifestations, is totalitarian and views people as something to be exploited for some end rather than actually valuing their dignity, which society agrees upon irregardless of religion or lack thereof if you're not a sociopath or psychopath who shouldn't be in society in the first place. The whole basis of morality should never be merely about power and authority, it should be regarding the evidence and arguments made for the conclusions in policy, action, etc.

Click to expand...

Generally only societies that are founded on Christian principles value their dignity and actually have an rationally objective basis for doing so. Secular humanist societies at present still do up to a point (except the unborn) as a remnant from their Christian past. But we see that over time that erodes in such societies.

mm: And because you're talking about objective as absolute/perfect, seemingly, of course you're not going to find that, but I never even said that, so nice strawman, one of many

Click to expand...

Maybe, but it appears you are basing your view of humanity just on a majority vote.

Ed1wolf said:

Generally only societies that are founded on Christian principles value their dignity and actually have an rationally objective basis for doing so. Secular humanist societies at present still do up to a point (except the unborn) as a remnant from their Christian past. But we see that over time that erodes in such societies.

Click to expand...

Yeah?
Prove it.

muichimotsu said:

And because you're talking about objective as absolute/perfect, seemingly, of course you're not going to find that, but I never even said that, so nice strawman, one of many

Click to expand...

No, I dont deny that humans cannot understand God's moral perfectly or perfectly objectively.

mm; Now you're applying a naturalistic fallacy to someone who affirms evolution and also affirms morality, because morality does not follow from nature, including evolution as an explanatory model for the diversity of biological species and you'd be hard pressed to find atheists or anyone that argues this idea that is basically you strawmanning social Darwinism onto those who don't affirm your divine command theory.

Click to expand...

Actually many evolutionists even today believe in a form of social Darwinism. Though of course, not the extreme point of the Nazis.

mm: Also, evolution doesn't make value claims about any species, because the survival of the species is not dependent on minds calibrating or determining anything, it's nature as it works and doesn't care about human sentiments. Us being animals and a species does not mean anything, because science is not making claims about meta ethics and the moral semantics/ontology/justification involved that is the area of philosophy, a product of millennia of human thought in cultures dating back easily 10K years, I'd hazard

Click to expand...

This is true, which is my point, if there is no God then there is no such thing as real existing morality. Us being animals does mean something to many people. Often in debates about the morality of homosexuality, one of the first arguments in favor of it being moral is that other animals engage in homosexual behavior.

mm: And no, my morality is merely similar to Christianity, but that doesn't mean Christianity gets to take the credit, because I am not merely my environment in regards to my values and worldview. If anything, there's a reason I keep the Buddhist label in spite of likely not really agreeing with a Buddhist monk you'd inquire about various metaphysical issues, but my morality is not based on some divine command, but actual evidence and psychological consideration of others with a philosophical background that further justifies the model I utilize, which is a bit variable

Click to expand...

Were you raised by Christian parents? I know you are not entirely produced by your environment but you are strongly influenced by it especially in the area of morality. My morality is not based on some divine command theory but rather the moral character of God.

mm: Incorrect, human flourishing is not dependent as a concept on Christian morality, especially because it predates it (eudaimonia as a concept existing around 399BCE in Aristotle's works, from what I gather, the Greek for what is commonly rendered as human flourishing in moral discussions) and has not been argued by you, merely asserted yet again, to somehow only function and come about because of Christianity, entirely ignoring millennia of history for non Christian cultures that flourished with Christianity even being a thing they were aware of (Japan not hearing Christian messages until about the 16th century, for instance and they were perfectly fine, even if they did have issues, their morality is not divorced from the idea of human flourishing)

Click to expand...

Of course, there are going to be similarities between societies worldwide given that all humans are created in the image of the Christian God and created with a moral conscience based on His character. Though Japan was a pretty horrible place until Douglas MacArthur gave them a Judeo-Christian Constitution. Though even today they are much more racist and sexist than most Western societies. And God revealed the concept of human equality to Moses 1000 years before Aristotle.

mm: Secularism is not antithetical to Christianity by necessity, it's only opposed to the theocratic/fundamentalist/totalitarian tendencies that can, but don't always, result from that religiosity and worldview that informs behaviors and regard to general civil laws (antinomians come to mind, or dominionists)

Click to expand...

Christians are commanded to influence society for good. ie being salt and light in the world and society. That is how they ended slavery in several nations, mistreatment of children and women, and many produced many of western societies best ideas and practices, such as human equality, true justice, ending infanticide and abortion. And of course, humanitarian institutions like orphanages and hospitals and even modern universities. If you consider these things theocratic then your version of secularism may be antithetical to Christianity.

Ed1wolf said:

No, I dont deny that humans cannot understand God's moral perfectly or perfectly objectively.

Click to expand...

This means you cannot say if God is good or not. The things you can't understand about God's morality could be explained simply by His being an evil God, and you have no way of showing that He is not.

Ed1wolf said:

Actually many evolutionists even today believe in a form of social Darwinism. Though of course, not the extreme point of the Nazis.

Click to expand...

To quote Richard Dawkins:
"I was mortified to read in the Guardian (‘Animal Instincts’, 27 May 2006) that The Selfish Gene is the favourite book of Jeff Skilling, CEO of the infamous Enron Corporation, and that he derived inspiration of a Social Darwinist character from it. The Guardian journalist Richard Conniff gives a good explanation of the misunderstanding: Animal instincts. I have tried to forestall similar misunderstandings in my new preface to the thirtieth-anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene, just brought out by Oxford University Press."
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (p. 267).

Ed1wolf said:

This is true, which is my point, if there is no God then there is no such thing as real existing morality.

Click to expand...

At this point in the thread, after a full and thorough exploration of your arguments, we've established that in fact the opposite is true. If there is a God such as the one you describe, then there is no such thing as real, existing morality. This has been quite clearly demonstrated by your inability to show that Christian morality can be founded on God's character, and your complete inability to refute Euthyphro's Dilemma.

Ed1wolf said:

Us being animals does mean something to many people. Often in debates about the morality of homosexuality, one of the first arguments in favor of it being moral is that other animals engage in homosexual behavior.

Click to expand...

In the debates I've read, that point is usually made when the anti-homosexualist claims that homosexuality is unnatural, not immoral.

Ed1wolf said:

My morality is not based on some divine command theory but rather the moral character of God.

Click to expand...

In your case, going by what you have said in this thread, they're the same thing.

Ed1wolf said:

Though Japan was a pretty horrible place until Douglas MacArthur gave them a Judeo-Christian Constitution. Though even today they are much more racist and sexist than most Western societies.

Click to expand...

Heard the news? A gang of white hooligans bearing Confederate flags just invaded the seat of American government. The President-for-five-more-days is supported by the Ku Klux Klan and, in a rally where there were Neo-Nazis chanting "Jews shall not replace us," he said there were very fine people on both sides.

Ed1wolf said:

And God revealed the concept of human equality to Moses 1000 years before Aristotle.

Click to expand...

You mean Moses who ordered wholesale genocide?

Ed1wolf said:

Christians are commanded to influence society for good. ie being salt and light in the world and society.

Click to expand...

“Kill them all and let God sort them out.”

Ed1wolf said:

That is how they ended slavery in several nations, mistreatment of children and women, and many produced many of western societies best ideas and practices, such as human equality, true justice, ending infanticide and abortion.

Click to expand...

Slavery in the USA was directly based on the Bible.
And by the way, what exactly is wrong with abortion?

doubtingmerle said:

ed: Actually it is subjective in the sense there is no objective basis for wanting humans to flourish over other species because according to atheistic evolution no species is any more valuable or special than any other species.

dm: We choose what we want to value. Almost all choose to exist. Human existence requires cooperation with others. Cooperation requires some sort of rules, what we call morality. So we all are interested in morality.

Click to expand...

Yes, but if there is no God then there is no objective basis for morality and it doesnt really exist, it is just personal preference. And since humans generally live according to what they think is objectively real, not having an objective basis for morality is a slippery slope toward tyranny and moral degradation. This can be seen in societies like the Aztecs, Germany, France, the Soviet Union and others.

ed: But yes, atheists from societies based on Christian principles or raised by Christian parents of course are going to have morals similar to Christian morality and their understanding of human flourishing would be similar.

dm: Long before Christians came along, other cultures such as the Babylonians, Greeks, and Chinese had codes of morality. Morality is not something Christians invented. Babylonian law came before Jewish law, and served as the basis of much of the Jewish law.

Click to expand...

Of course, I am not denying that. All humans are created in the image of the Christian God with a moral conscience, so all humans are interested in morality and in the more successful societies their morality is more similar to God's moral law.

dm: Likewise Greek and Persian law had an influence in Christian thought.

Click to expand...

Evidence?

dm: The fact that moral codes learn from previous codes does not prove that we need to run the clock backward to their codes. Time marches on.

Click to expand...

Who said to go back to the Greeks and Babylonians? We need to go back to the moral laws of the universe just like if we ignore the physical laws of the universe we get into trouble so also ignoring the moral laws of the universe we get in trouble. The creator created these laws for our good and flourishing.

ed: But over time as Christian morality is eroded away by atheism or secularism, the society generally degrades into tyranny.

dm: Actually, Christian code is not being eroded, it is being improved. The principles in the Humanist Manifesto far exceed the New Testament code which degrades women, allows slavery, and commands people to obey the Old Testament laws.

Click to expand...

Christianity has actually raised women not degraded them (unlike humanism that allows the killing of unborn women), does not allow involuntary slavery as I demonstrated earlier and encourages us to obey the moral laws of the universe which allows us the greater freedom to flourish. Humanism pushes for more powerful governments and more rules and regulations which restricts human freedom and flourishing.

dm: What happened after Christianity took over the Roman world? Society deteriorated into the tyranny of feudalism. Later it led to things like the Spanish Inquisition and the many religious wars in Europe.

Click to expand...

Most of those things are the result of the corrupt leadership of the Roman Catholic Church whom ignored the actual teachings of Christ and His word and restricted access to His word which kept the people ignorant of what God expected of them morally. But then when the Reformation occurred and His word became more widespread and taught to the people things slowly began to improve.

dm: Christians had deep ties with Nazi Germany, per the link I listed here.

Click to expand...

Not orthodox biblical Christians, as I demonstrated earlier most churches in Germany had long before rejected orthodoxy and incorporated the heresy of theological liberalism.

dm: Humanists, by contrast, have supported a high code of ethics, and have resisted tyranny.

Click to expand...

Actually Western secular humanism was an offshoot of Christianity and has borrowed Christian morality ever since but it is a hollowed out morality with no objective basis and therefore has been deteriorating ever since it began as we see its capitulation to the cheapening of human life and restriction of human freedoms like religious practice and free speech.

ed: And human flourishing comes to an end even the atheistic understanding of that term.

dm: I disagree. The enlightenment led to a great time of human flourishing.

Click to expand...

Yes, but even the enlightenment is an offshoot of Christianity but it too is hollowed out with its rejection of the true God and has deteriorated over time similar to humanism as I stated above. And has now devolved into Post Modernism which rejects the existence of objective truth.

muichimotsu said:

ed: While natural selection is not random, the guiding force of natural selection IS random, e.g. changes in the environment.

mm: Not truly random, you're still weaseling in a false dichotomy that tries to insinuate your position is better without evidencing the thing you claim exists

Click to expand...

Evidence it is not truly random? Well if you dont think that the environment is random, then if you go back further to the origin of the universe, it is definitely random. Most atheists believe the universe is the result of random motions of subatomic particles.

ed: It is more rational for morality to have come from a preexisting moral standard rather than amoral processes.

mm: You're free to think that, it doesn't make it so without an argument, which you haven't made, so maybe start with that. The "amoral" processes don't have the capacity to think about morality, you're still asserting teleology without a basis beyond your "common sense"

Click to expand...

No it is more than common sense, we know that throughout all of human experience morals only come from moral beings. There is no empirical evidence that it can come from ultimately random amoral processes.

ed: There is much more evidence for dualism than that. In fact, a purely materialistic mind is self refuting.

mm: No it isn't, it's called supervenience and emergent properties. It's experiential, it's not supposed to be purely material in an absolute empirical sense, there's always going to be some foundational elements that we assert for practicality, you're still expecting absolute certainty in any position, which is highly irrational and unrealistic

Click to expand...

No, but even if it is emergent from chemicals it is still bound by the laws of physics regarding chemicals which means that thoughts are determined by the ratio of chemicals in your brain and not on the weighing of evidence or logic. Thereby making your argument self refuting. In addition, if transgenderism is real, it basically refutes a materialistic view of the mind.

ed:But if the origin of your brain chemicals is the same as the origin of Hitler's then how do you know that your view of caring about most humans is better than his view of just caring about people he called Aryans?

mm: Because the origin of the brain chemicals is not the same as the result made by thinking about morality, you're engaging in a fallacy of composition now, same as I've already brought up, and others have as well. The ontology of something does not follow to the capacity it has in a holistic sense versus the reductionist angle you're going with (and taking a reductio ad Hitlerum no less)

Click to expand...

You are missing my point. Of course, you can subjectively decide you dont like his conclusions but you dont have a real objective base for condemning them. Should justice be decided on emotion?

ed: The mind of the creator of His image bearers and the universe in which they live certainly would know what is best for us.

dm: Only if you could actually demonstrate it, you're just asserting it, which is pointless, because I could just assert something and justify it by the same nebulous faith basis and anthropocentric presuppositions. Weaseling in intention without evidence is dishonest

Click to expand...

I can demonstrate it, most of the best characteristics of Western civilization come from Christian principles and the moral law of the Christian God.

ed: What I want is irrelevant, there is strong evidence that there is a perfect moral standard whether you or I want it or not, the objective character of the Creator of the Universe. The moral law of God would say that what you did was justified.

mm: A perfect moral standard could not take variation into account, it would apply universally with no variations or changes possible, in order to actually be perfect.

Click to expand...

Huh? No, that is what makes it perfect because it CAN take variation into account. A standard that did not take such things into account would certainly not be perfect.

mm: Would that law say so, or are you just happening to agree and that doesn't actually justify your claim of this law existing beyond your assertion and confidence (neither of which are evidence)?

Click to expand...

The law is contained in the Law-Word of God called the Bible.

mm: God's moral law is context sensitive both to the temporal context and the ultimate context.
If it is perfect, as you described, it cannot be context sensitive or it is therefore relative and not necessary and thus perfect. If you're just making this up, it's not helping your case at all, it's only showing that you keep grasping at straws with presup nonsense that is circular and question begging about something that isn't evidenced (God), usually because of a false dichotomy or misunderstanding about logic

Click to expand...

No, see above if it was not context sensitive then it would not be perfect. A universal law applies to all situations and takes those situations into consideration without any changes on our part.

ed: No, see above. God and His law has our absolute best interests in mind.

mm: Except that's just authoritarian and totalitarian, it demands obedience above thinking, which is morally repugnant because it doesn't care about agency or autonomy in any meaningful sense. You can't simultaneously say you care about free will and then throw it out as essentially evil except in a very particular execution

Click to expand...

No, there are certain moral principles that are somewhat open ended and where we use our God given moral conscience to work thru those principles and apply them to the specific situation. And then there are laws that are so obvious that they demand obedience without the need for much thinking but certainly not above thinking.

ed: Where does this value come from? Why does just having a moral capacity make homo sapiens more valuable than other animals? Sounds like something humans made up just because of their own feelings for other humans.

mm: Wow, more strawman, because I never said that: the mere feeling or capacity to think about morality doesn't make us more special, it allows us to conceive of the idea of value in the first place, which is not necessarily unique to us in the entire universe, it's only assumed with a great deal of arrogance by people who then conveniently posit a creator that is much like them in its general thought process, just "perfect"

Click to expand...

Evidence that other species think about morality?

mm: It is a social obligation for us to care about each other because it benefits us to have that concern in order for society to continue flourishing as best it can, rather than bending to the will of theocratic sycophants who think they know what's best by appealing to something they rationalize rather than demonstrate with any consistent valid and sound arguments

Click to expand...

I can demonstrate that the Christian God most likely does exist. See my post to interested atheist where I do so using the BB theory and the law of sufficient cause.