Where's God?

[Ed1wolf]

Using the same logic, changing only the words in italics:

1. This blizzard exists and had a beginning meaning it is an effect.
2. All effects need causes, therefore this blizzard needs a cause.
3. Scientists study the characteristics of an effect to determine the characteristics of the cause.
4. This blizzard is physical.
5. According to the law of causality, a cause cannot be part of the effect.
6. Therefore the cause of this blizzard must be non-physical.

So what non-physical thing causes blizzards? Demons? Should we start calling meterologists demonologists?

No, you are confused. Purely physical effects within a physical universe require a physical cause. Only if something is physically all that exists, would require a nonphysical cause due to the law of causality and nonphysical effects within the physical universe require nonphysical causes.

dm; Your logic is bunkers.

No, this is logic 101.

dm: All this is odd, since you keep insisting (falsely) that Christianity discovered methodological naturalism because you say (falsely) that the Bible says that divine interventions are rare.

Read Jeremiah 33:25. And see how the number of divine interventions is relatively rare given that the bible covers 13.8 billion years.

dm: And yet when it comes to causes, you say that the cause of every physical action needs to be non-physical.
Sounds like nonsense to me.

I never said that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Uhh computers dont have a free will either. Thanks for making my point. Their electrical charges are designed/programmed to go down certain predetermined pathways just like our brains if there is a purely physical mind.

Likewise our brains are just mechanical devices. They produce the illusion that there is a self behind the curtain telling the brain what to do, but as far as we know, that is just an illusion. The brain is the thing that thinks, and the brain is electro-mechanical.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Only if something is physically all that exists, would require a nonphysical cause due to the law of causality and nonphysical effects within the physical universe require nonphysical causes.

You are making the assumption that the known universe is physically all that exists. Scientists do not believe that. The universe could extend far beyond anything that we could possibly observe. And there could be other dimensions with all sorts of other physical existence. And there could be a multiverse which includes many similar universes scattered over many different dimensions of spacetime.

You are making this invalid argument:

The argument from limited observation
1. We are limited in how far back in time and space we can observe.
2. If we cannot observe it, then it is nonphyscial.
3. God is said to be nonphysical.
4. Therefore, God exists.


Your statement number 2 is bunkers. You conclusion number 4 does not follow from 2 and 3.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Read Jeremiah 33:25.

I read it.
Then I responded.
You ignored my response.
Now you ask me to read it again.

Well, uh, OK then, let's look at it again, in context. Jeremiah 33:17-26 says:

17 For thus saith Jehovah: David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; 18 neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt-offerings, and to burn meal-offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.

19 And the word of Jehovah came unto Jeremiah, saying, 20 Thus saith Jehovah: If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, so that there shall not be day and night in their season; 21 then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he shall not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.

22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured; so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.

23 And the word of Jehovah came to Jeremiah, saying, 24 Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which Jehovah did choose, he hath cast them off? thus do they despise my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.

25 Thus saith Jehovah: If my covenant of day and night [stand] not, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; 26 then will I also cast away the seed of Jacob, and of David my servant, so that I will not take of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and will have mercy on them.​

Please note:

1. This promises that the house of David will always rule. This prophecy failed.

2. This promises that the Levites will continuously sacrifice. This prophecy failed. In fact, the book of Hebrews says the institution was permanently dissolved.

3. Verses 19-21 assume that the readers already know that day and night and the movement of the stars occur in regular patterns. The Bible is not revealing this as a new fact. It is merely taking it as a given that any shepherd would already know this.

4. Jeremiah appears to be trying to promise that the kingdom is a sure thing (v19-21). But his logic is really convoluted. He says if day and night fail, then the kingdom could fail. He should have said, "If day and night continue, then the kingdom will be just as sure." That is clearly what he is trying to say. But what he ends up saying is messed up. One can understand a partially literate shepherd making this mistake, but how can this kind of writing come from God?

5. Verse 24 says the two families (Israel and Judah) will return. Elsewhere Jeremiah says it will happen in 70 years. As we discussed, this is completely wrong. One of those families did return, but it was not in 70 years, it was 49. The other family dissolved into other peoples and exists no more. The family that returned did not see the glorious kingdom under David that was promised.

6. Verses 25-26 repeats v19-20, which is just one example of the rambling of the prophets. There is endless repetition, and yet we are told that God did not have enough bandwidth to gives us an overview of the scientific method or a primer on germ theory. This could have prevented much of the suffering from disease in the Middle Ages.

7. Any shepherd watching sheep at night would know that there is a cycle of day and night; that the moon has regular phases; that the stars circle the heavens once a day plus an additional cycle once a year; that stars in the north circle the north star, while stars in the south sweep all the way across the sky; that Venus ("The Morning Star") moves in regular patterns, etc. None of this required revelation from God. They all knew about the "ordinances of heaven and earth" by simple observation, as did people all over the world.
​

 

[doubtingmerle]

You do know I am playing Devils advocate here right? ...On what objective basis was he wrong for killing the jews? There is none right?

You say are playing devil's advocate. I am trying to understand why you keep advocating for the devil. You don't need to do that. And yet probably over a dozen times you have advocated for Hitler on this thread. Why?

In the role which you keep on choosing to take, you argue that Hitler could say it was self defense. I have repeatedly explained to you that there is no way the Holocaust can be justifiied as self defense.

And then once again you inform us that your client says he killed all those Jews in self defense.

And once again I explain to you that the Holocaust was a horrible act of aggression, and can certainly not be justified as self defense.

And this just kept going on and on. If anybody doubts this, they can read this thread and look at how many times you have presented the view that the Holocaust was self defense.

Your point seems to be that Hitler's argument for self defense is so overwhelming, that only Christians would be able to figure it out. But sorry, Hitler's argument is not overwhelming. If he argued that it was self defense, that is a pitiful attempt at an excuse. There was no good reason for the Holocaust.

But even if someone had a good case that some other act of killing was self defense, atheists are as good as Christians to serve on that jury. Juries can include Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, followers of Jainism, or whatever. All are capable of serving on juries and deciding whether the act was justified as self defense.

So please quit explaining to us that Hitler thought it was self defense. It was not.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: No, marriage is not a right.

ia: Again you cut off the branch you're sitting in. You do that a lot, as Merle has pointed out.
If the government refused to recognise your religion and banned you from practising it, that would be an outrageous infringement on your rights to believe as you see fit.
And as for gay marriage, there's a big difference between a man and a woman people saying they don't want to get married, and a man and a woman saying they do want to get married and the government telling them that they can't, for no reason other than they wish to. You would, I'm sure, recognise the injustice in that; it's the same with gay people.

No, big difference, there IS a right to practice your religion but there is not a right to marry.
↑

ed: Don't you want them to have happiness?

ia: Sure, but I don't have time to pursue each and every thing I think should happen in a perfect world.

I am disappointed in you.
↑

ed: Yes, that is true, the only thing one can prove with certainty is their own existence and that only to themselves. Philosophers have known this for at least 400 years.

ia: Ridiculous. Just because we can't prove anything with 100% certainty, that doesn't mean we can't use "prove" in it's non-mathematical sense to show the truth of a situation. If we were to meet in person, I'm sure you'd be happy to accept my proof that my hair is black, I have ten fingers and I am 180 cm tall. And if you could prove God, I'm sure you would. As it is, your arguments - as I feel quite confident saying, on our fifty-sixth page of conversation - are nothing but sophistry and bad logic.

I have shown that God is the inference to the best explanation. Does that count as proof? And you have yet to prove that my argument is sophistry and bad logic.
↑

ed; If you take all the legs and the back off a chair, it is no longer the same chair, but almost every cell in the human body is replaced every 7 years and yet you are still the same person 7 years later.

ia: Yes. So?

If the mind was entirely tied to our physical cells then after 7 years you would no longer be you. But lo and behold you are still you.
↑

ed: If transgenderism is real, then a being with every cell in his body being male, but his mind is female, so that biology has practically nothing to do with the actual sex or gender of the person/mind.

ia: Uh...so?

It means that the mind is not tied to the physical cells in your body and brain.
↑

ed: No, there are cases where people have gained knowledge that they could not have obtained without having left their bodies.
ia; (shrug). Stories get told. Who cares? Especially when the reporters are generally credulous and unreliable.

These are not stories by reporters, they are stories from well respected doctors and neurologists.
↑

ed: Well then how do you know it doesn't exist? See above for the evidence. In addition, if the mind is purely physical then your decisions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain and not the weighing of evidence.

ia: As Merle has already pointed out, this is nonsense.

He has yet to prove it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If the mind was entirely tied to our physical cells then after 7 years you would no longer be you. But lo and behold you are still you.

Fun with words.

That tree I planted 10 years ago. That is no longer the same tree?

That elephant in the zoo. It is no longer the same elephant?

Molecules change, but living things have a continuity of existence anyway.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Jesus and all of his disciples only used verbal persuasion in spreading the gospel, not force and never tried to stop any opposition speech with force.

What does God do with denying his existence? No god does not provide free speech.

Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword to defend themselves when He got arrested.

He also said to turn the other cheek.

The commandment "You shall not steal" plainly implies a right to private property, housing in soldiers in private homes is plainly a violation of that.

Yes but god told the Israelites to steal from the neighboring people.

God is the ultimate judge, but He had temporal judges in ancient Israel.

God does not provide for due process. See Ananias and Saphira. God is the judge, jury and executioner.

No, God invented lex talonis, which means the punishment must fit the crime.

Yet he is the judge of what that punishment is. Killing people for lying is cruel punishment.

So does that mean that since the German people agreed that the jews did not have rights in their society then what the Nazis did was ok?

No, rights given by a society has nothing to do with their moral rightness. Rights can be immoral.

Was it right and moral for God to kill all of humanity except 8? or to kill Ananias and Saphira for lying?

Also, God does not allow for freedom of religion. See the first commandment, or baal worshippers etc.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Correct.

But refuting somebody many times is a refutation.

Sir, this thread is 1111 posts long. Anybody can see that you have been refuted many times.

Provide one example.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I'm happy to assume that God exists, for the purpose of this exercise. In which case, please don't say that He "objectively" exists. He does nothing of the sort!

Yes, I demonstrated He exists outside your mind earlier in this thread, therefore He objectively exists.

ia: However, since whether or not God's character is your moral foundation is the thing that you're trying to prove, you can't assume this for the sake of your argument. Don't you feel embarrassed, saying "Let me now prove that I am right. To begin with, let us assume that I am right," like this?

Uhhh....That was not my argument.

ia: If the first, who gave you the moral conscience? God. Therefore, it cannot be used as evidence, since its morality is itself the thing you are trying to prove.
As for Jesus's life, either you are using your God-given moral conscience to assess it (in which case your case is invalid, see above) or you are using some other system (in which case you don't need God to tell right from wrong, and so you lose the argument again).

I never claimed I could prove God was good thru an argument. That can only be found out thru experience just like any other personal relationship. You keep bringing up this straw man argument even after I have corrected you multiple times. Many people would say that means that you lost the argument. That is what losers do, constantly try to attack someone's view using straw man arguments.

ia: You've still lost the argument. If there are certain things that we can do that make us feel better, and feeling better about doing them is our justification for them being moral (as you stated above when you 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") then you don't need God to be a foundation for your morality. You find that certain things are rewarding and fulfilling to do, and - as you yourself said - you know that they are good for you, and therefore moral."
I don't expect you to accept this. I expect you to deny, ignore or forget about what you said. But I'll remember that you said morality is based on what you experience in the world and what is enriching and rewarding to you. And while that's not exactly correct, it is a good start at a system that does not require God's existence at all. Well done.

No, you left out my key point, unlike atheists I am not living out MY morality. I try to live out my life according to the revealed moral law of the universe based on God's objectively existing moral character. While atheists live out their morality based on their subjective beliefs and feelings.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Provide one example.

You were refuted in post 1268.

There. That is one example. I can provide you about 500 other examples if you are interested.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I try to live out my life according to the revealed moral law of the universe based on God's objectively existing moral character.

Except it does not include giving to every man who asks of you, even though Luke clearly says you need to do that.

And you tell us it does include willingly thrusting your sword through the heart of a 3 year old girl if you happen to be part of Saul's army.

You tell us that "Act wisely" overrules the command to give to everyone who asks. But you don't use "Act wisely" as a precept to overrule the command to kill 3 year old girls. Why not? If "Act wisely" is a trump card that overrules any command you want, why not use your trump card when it makes really good sense to use it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I never claimed I could prove God was good thru an argument. That can only be found out thru experience just like any other personal relationship.

You feel that God is good.
Others feel that God is not good.
Who really knows?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I never claimed I could prove God was good thru an argument. That can only be found out thru experience just like any other personal relationship.

In other words:

The argument from Ed1Wolf's feelings
1. Ed1Wolf subjectively feels that God is objectively good.
2. Anything Ed1Wolf feels is objective truth.
3. Therefore it is objectively true that God is objectively good.

P2 is rubbish.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Yes.

And I agree with Thomas Jefferson that they can seek to find happiness by seeking to have governments do what seems most likely to them to positively affect their safety and happiness. Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (Source, emphasis added)
​

In context, "these ends" refers to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". So Jefferson is clearly saying that people have the right to seek the government that, in their personal opinion, will best effect their safety and happiness.

The Declaration nowhere says that those who claim to speak for God have the right to force their views of government on others.

And it was not only Jefferson that said this. Multiple others with authority in the colonies signed this document. That led to a war, fighting over that very thing, the right to govern themselves based on what they personally thought would best effect their safety and happiness.

And I am thankful that they did that.

Yes but you omit key principles in the DOI and the Constitution. The founders believed in freedom with form, not freedom without form, because that would be anarchy. The form by which freedom is practiced is within the framework of the Laws of Nature and Natures God. This is plainly seen in the actions the founders did in the early years of the nation.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The objectively existing moral character of God is the basis of my morality.

Basically I hear you saying this on this thread:

The argument from the definition of good
1. God defines what words mean in English.
2. God defined that the English word "good" means whatever God is.
3. Based on this definition, God's character is "good".
4. Therefore, God is "good".

You cannot see that you are reasoning in a circle?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Basically I hear you saying this on this thread:

The argument from the definition of good
1. God defines what words mean in English.
2. God defined that the English word "good" means whatever God is.
3. Based on this definition, God's character is "good".
4. Therefore, God is "good".

You cannot see that you are reasoning in a circle?

Thank you, Merle. That's a very clear way of putting it. And yes, that is exactly what @Ed1wolf is doing.

I'm afraid I'm going to be a little short of time in the coming days, so I shall probably have to leave this thread. But I think its purpose is done. By trying and failing to solve Euthyphro's Dilemma - in an impressive number of ways, and an even more impressive number of repetitions - Ed has solidified it and rendered it unbreachable. It's good to have your ideas tested, and this is one that we can certainly say passed the test.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'm afraid I'm going to be a little short of time in the coming days, so I shall probably have to leave this thread.

It was great to have you hear. I appreciated reading your posts. I wish you well.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes but you omit key principles in the DOI and the Constitution. The founders believed in freedom with form, not freedom without form, because that would be anarchy. The form by which freedom is practiced is within the framework of the Laws of Nature and Natures God.

That simply is not true. Again, the DOI says,

laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ​

It does not say in such form as theologians tell us God wants. It does not say in such form as is consistent with the Bible. It does not say in such form as Ed1Wolf wants to tyrannically force us to have, much to our chagrin. No matter how much you want to establish a theocracy that forces everybody to submit to you and what you want, it simply does not give you the right to force your rules on us.

It says "in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

And sorry, the form you want does not seem to me to be most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness.

You would not like it if Muslims or Jews or Hindus forced laws that were based on their religion and forced you to follow them. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Of course the courts can decide on what people's rights are. That's their job. Don't be ridiculous.

Yes they can but it is a slippery slope, look at Nazi Germany where the courts also did that.

ia: Wrong again.
Point 7: wrong and misleading. Maybe the cause of the physical universe was something else that is physical.

Not according to the laws of logic. If the universe is EVERYTHING that exists physically, then according to the laws of logic, its cause cannot be physical, otherwise it would have to create itself which is logically impossible.

ia: Who knows? Maybe it was something non-physical but other than God.

Maybe, but you would still have to analyze the characteristics of the universe to see what nonphysical entity has the most likely features to produce the characteristics of the universe that we see in it. IMO, the Christian God has more of those characteristics than any other proposed cause of the universe.

ia: Who knows? And that's the point. You can't just say "My God fits the criteria for something that could have created the universe, therefore we must consider God as a serious possibility," because you have yet to offer any evidence at all that your God exists.

The universe and its characteristics is the evidence that He exists.

ia: Point 8: nonsense. The existence of ears and eyes is a tiny accident of chemistry on a tiny speck of rock in an enormous universe. It's explained by science, and we need look no further for an explanation.

How can an accident create purposes and laws? Do you have any other example of that occurring? And you cant use living things, because that would assume what we are trying to prove.

ia: You might just as well say that because the universe contains gold, it was created by a Golden Retriever. It would follow exactly the same line of reasoning, and be just as ridiculous.

No, as I demonstrated above since a golden retriever is a physical being it could not have been the cause of the universe.

ia: Also, you're confusing prescriptive and descriptive laws.

Fraid not.

ia: The thing is, Ed, you're just not very good at this. Can I suggest you stop trying to explain things and instead rethink them?
Just as one would expect.

Not very good at what?

ia: Exactly. Your morality is derived from your contact with the world and your experience. In other words, God is unnecessary.

Yes, my morality is derived from my contact with God and my experience with Him.

ia: Not at all. Because in this case, you are saying that God is the foundation of morality, and you are still - after over fifty pages - unable to prove this. (In case I'm not being clear, by "prove" I mean provide a reasonable logical argument and/or convincing evidence for what you say).

I have proven it see above where I demonstrated He is the creator and lawgiver of the universe.