I'll admit that you have me puzzled here. I'm not understanding 100% the connection between personal and concurrent. I don't know if you can clarify any more than that, maybe I'm just dumb. Can I ask though, what about the river scenario? If there is some source that the energy of the universe comes from and then returns to, why is it impossible to create a universe from an unintelligent source? Imagine the source of energy that created the universe is the ocean. It feeds water into the top of the river, the river flows down, and then flows back into the ocean. In the middle a canyon is carved. And that requires no intelligence or a personal cause.
What sort of a source would be necessary as the Cause of the universe? Is it enough to posit only energy moving in a circuit outward from some characterless source and then back into it? Is that really all that would be required of a Cause of the universe? Mainstream science tells us that the universe began to exist a finite time ago in the past and we understand that to mean that all time, space, matter
and energy began to exist at the first event of the universe. But this means there were none of these things before the universe came into being. No energy, no matter, not even any space. And without these things there could not have been any time, either. There was, then, not even any "before" prior to the universe existing, since "before" is a descriptor of time! So, the energetic Cause of the universe you're positing doesn't fit with what we know of conditions prior to the beginning of the universe.
I say "so what" because I don't see a necessity for absolute morals, or at least not all things that are moral are absolutes. It may be depressing and it may make you feel meaningless if morals are just things that humans designed that made conditions for ourselves as nice as possible, but why does it have to be any other way? I don't see the necessity that comes from this line of thinking.
It isn't that the Christian argues that there
needs to be objective and absolute moral values and duties that exist in some philosophically-theoretical sense so that they can argue from them to God but, rather, that such objective morality is
plainly evident among humans and requires an explanation that an appeal to subjective, human agency cannot properly supply. Let me ask you: Is it right, is it moral, to torture an infant to death for fun? Has there ever been any culture in any time that thought that it was? How about cowardice, or betrayal, or rape? Has there ever been any nation that has thought these things to be morally right and good? Does history record a human society where murder was generally considered the moral thing to do? No, we all understand that such things are wrong on a level independent of societies, and cultural trends, and time; they exist on an
objective level, that demands an explanation. That explanation, for the Christian, is simply that a Moral Law requires a Moral Law Giver, who is God.
If we say that there are moral absolutes, don't murder, don't steal, etc... Then we are saying that those actions are morally bad all of the time, right? But if God does an immoral action, that we have agreed are immoral actions all of the time, then is God immoral or moral? If he is above all that, and I recognize that if he existed he very well could be, then why describe him as good if morals don't apply to him?
You are making the mistake of placing creature and Creator in the same category. I know parents who insist on behaviour from their children that they do not demand of themselves, but doing do so does not make them, or the child-specific commands they issue to their children, immoral. For instance, many parents have a different level of deference and respect they demand that their children show toward adults than they require of themselves. Young children are also commonly forbidden from driving the car, or possessing a sharp knife, or playing near the edge of a fast-flowing river. We don't generally consider such restrictions, that are not necessarily observed by the parents, as grounds to question their moral fibre. Their role as parents, their relationship to their children, the fact that they are adults - all of these factors play into the differences between what is demanded of the children and what is demanded of the parent. Likewise, God's role as our Creator and Sustainer, His relationship to us as an omniscient, omnipotent, infinite God, and the fact that He is not human all create a circumstance where what is required of us morally is different in some respects from what God is obliged to observe in His own conduct.
What about what God commands us to do? Sometimes he commands people to do terrible things (Old Testament) sometimes he commands us to be nice (New Testament). Morals are now subject to time periods and are no longer absolute. If they were absolute, then God commanded people to do immoral things, which would contradict his nature, wouldn't it?
Just take the Amalek people as an example. God commanded genocide, but genocide would be a moral absolute in that it is always wrong. God also commanded Israel to take slaves when they conquered their distant neighbors, but slavery being wrong would be a moral absolute.
So given these contradictory actions, one could say that there is only one moral with God, and that is to do as God says. That is the only moral absolute that can exist in Moral Objectivity with a God, that I can see, since God shouldn't be commanding people to do immoral actions.
God has a unique prerogative as God to make demands upon us that we would not be right in making of one another. He also, as the Giver and Sustainer of Life, has the right to do with all life whatever He wishes. When God takes a human life, He is never guilty of murder. And God can use human agencies to enact His judgment upon the wicked. Again, this is His divine prerogative - especially so in the theocratic nation of OT Israel.
You are likely unaware that the literary conventions of the time when the OT was written included what is known as "war language." Victors in a battle often did what modern sportscasters do when they describe the action of various sports events. They would use grand hyperbole, making their victory more sweeping and wholesale than it was. "The Blue Jays
destroyed the White Sox." "The L.A. Kings
crushed the Boston Celtics." "The Montreal Canadians
annihilated the Calgary Flames." And so on. Of course, we understand that no actual destruction, or crushing, or annihilation of sports teams occurred - just as the writers and early readers of the OT would have understood that the Israelites had not really wiped out an entire nation of people. The writers of the OT used such exaggerated war language conventions common to their time in their descriptions of the victories of the Israelites over their enemies. We know this because in a number of instances in the OT, pagan nations the Israelites were described as having wiped out entirely - man, woman and child - appear a few chapters later fighting once again with Israel. In light of this, objections to God's "genocidal commands" in the OT seriously weaken.
Ironically, I feel that is exactly what believers are doing by stating this. They say you can't observe the multiverse, so throw that out as an option, and what you are left with is God. So I feel like we are both doing this exact illogical conundrum to each other.
The theistic view of a timeless, immaterial, transcendent Creator of the Universe does not suffer from the Boltzmann Brain problem, which effectively refutes the Multiverse theory. You see, it is incredibly more likely, if the Multiverse theory were true, that we would see Boltzmann Brain worlds all over the place before we would ever see a finely-tuned universe like our own. It is even far, far, far, far, far, far, far (and so on near ad infinitum) more likely that we would see life-permitting galaxies such as our own in totally disordered universes than it is that our finely-tuned universe should exist. But, we see only our own universe. No Boltzmann Brain worlds, no other fine-tuned galaxies in cosmic seas of chaos. And thus, the Multiverse Theory is refuted and with it your assertion that believers and unbelievers are in some sort of equalized position concerning their views on the origin of our finely-tuned universe.
It is only meant to show that there isn't any observable evidence for any position, so there isn't any reason to pick any of them to choose as the one you believe.
But this just isn't true. Mainstream science supports the theistic view of the origin of the universe (see the Big Bang Theory, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem). There is no comparable body of scientific evidence in support of the Multiverse but there is a successful refutation of it via the Boltzmann Brain problem. So, there isn't this evenness of position between atheist and theist on cosmological matters like you say there is.
It is only meant to show that there isn't any observable evidence for any position, so there isn't any reason to pick any of them to choose as the one you believe. If you felt one was more likely than another, you could go about looking for proof of your hypothesis, but it doesn't mean it's right. So that statement just states, "no one knows better than anyone else, so there is no proof or evidence for one or the other".
If you found evidence for your hypothesis, you would be more justified in believing it (even if it could not be proven utterly by your evidence) than would the person who believes no such proof exists and has just arbitrarily adopted an hypothesis. The standard isn't necessarily and always whether or not one has total, incontrovertible proof, but how likely or justifiable one's position is given the evidence (or lack thereof) for it. As far as I'm concerned, the Christian has very good evidence in support of their hypothesis that God created the universe. Maybe not absolute proof, but sufficient evidence for thinking it more likely than the alternatives.
With that being said though, if I had to bet on one explanation being proven before the other, I have to bet on science because it has a track record. People theorized the atom before it was proven, people theorized that the Earth revolved around the Sun before we could see it from outer space. If we took these arguments back in time a few hundred years, we would be arguing over the creation of the planet, and not the creation of the universe, but we can see how a solar system with planets comes into being in a natural process now.
The track record of science is not as solid as you make out here. In fact, there are few, if any, other knowledge disciplines that are as rife with corrections and failed theories as we find in the realm of science. I think, then, that your confidence in science is not entirely warranted.
But religion can't ever be quantified or measured at all. We can't find out how many people become better people by accepting God, nor can we figure out how many prayers are answered out of all the prayers made. It makes it reasonable, in my opinion, that although we don't know the origins of everything, we will gradually get a better understanding of it as time goes on until we quite possibly understand it all (given enough time). The only thing that can prove religion to be true just as well, is for the events of Revelation to come true.
It seems a bit hypocritical that you're willing to give science the benefit of the doubt and of time, but not Christianity. Besides, the things you offered as unmeasurable about religion aren't, for the Christian, the core of why they believe. Don't get me wrong: God
does change people just as He promises in His Word that He will, and He
does answer prayer. But we believe in Him, not primarily because we see people changed or because all our prayers get answered, but because of the witness of Creation, and the Bible, and the Holy Spirit within us to the reality of God. Can these things be measured? To some degree, yes, But why is empirical measurement the standard to which all truth must be held? Can you measure love? How much does it weigh? Is it soft or hard? Can you freeze love or boil it? How about integrity or joy? These things can't be weighed on a scale or boiled in a test tube, yet no one denies that they exist. And so, too, for a host of other things. It seems to me, therefore, that insisting that the methods of science must be the only means by which we can come to know anything as true is unnecessarily and unreasonably restrictive. In fact, even the idea, the assertion, that science is the only way we can know what is real and true is not a scientific statement but a
philosophical one and there is no way to subject this assertion to empirical testing. Does that make it, therefore, false?
So, do you think the the empirical method is the only way we can know anything? This is a tricky question, so be careful how you answer it. Here's a vid clip you might want to consider in regards to this question:
But God is only infinite and uncreated if you define him to be (unless he happens to be real of course) but you can't put those qualities into the argument.
The God of the Bible is infinite and uncaused
by definition just like circles have no right angles by definition and no bachelors are married by definition. How could you argue about the existence of bachelors while refusing to accept the defining characteristics of a bachelor? Without a defining set of characteristics establishing what it is you're talking about, any discussion about anything becomes nonsensical and fruitless. So, too, when it comes to talking about God. There are many conceptions of God, but the Christian one is very distinct and well-established. If you want to talk about Him, about the
Christian conception of God, then you are going to have to accept the established defining characteristics of Him, which include, among other things, that He is uncaused. Certainly, it makes no sense whatever to let you, an
atheist, determine what are and what are not the defining characteristics of the God of the Bible.
The point is that if there can be one exception to the rule that things need to be created, then there can be other exceptions.
Not if that exception is, by definition, a singular exception, which is what the Christian believes to be true of God. As the KCA establishes, the universe began a finite time ago in the past, and as a result, it cannot be uncaused. And, of course, this goes for all that exists within it. You might want to take a look at Liebniz's Argument from Contingency.
And since there is very good evidence for evolution, there is a very good reason to believe in something other than creation. As a throwback to one of your arguments that I kept misconstruing, there are a lot of Christians who have accepted evolution as being true, except that they attribute the initial "spark of life" as it were to God. They say that Genesis was a myth to explain what we couldn't understand, and that it is the rest of the Bible that is factual and not myth.
I don't reject the idea of micro-evolution. Natural selection, mutation, adaptation - these all work on a relatively small scale upon the species of Earth. But the idea that we can get from "goo to you by way of the zoo" is just silly. Genetic entropy, the problem of initial information, abiogensis, the incredible lack of transitional fossils, which should exist in countless millions in the geologic column but do not - all these and other issues completely confound the fundamental idea of evolution. And no amount of just-so stories can make up for these serious deficiencies in the theory.
I don't think the Genesis account must be read quite as literally as YECs like to do (see "Seven Days that Divide the World," by Dr. John Lennox), but the wholesale capitulation to the theory that is common particularly among liberal "Christians" is foolish and unnecessary, IMO.
The argument seemed to constrain me by not being able to deny the first premise: that morality of humans can only be subjective. But I actually deny that claim. Moral absolutes can be determined and discovered by humans without the use of a God.
But this isn't what the Moral Argument contends. It argues that God is the most reasonable Source for the objective moral values and duties that we observe in force among human beings. It does not say that we need God in order to
find these objective moral values and duties.
Some things are absolutely wrong, such as slavery and genocide. There is no time, place, culture, or society that should ever need the use of either of these two things.
Oh? What would you call the military assault upon Nazi Germany that was required to stop the spread of Nazism across the globe? If it was not actual genocide, it came very, very close. But it was undeniably necessary for the Allied forces to act as they did in resistance to the aggression of Hitler's Third Reich. In any case, I would agree with you that objective moral values and duties are plainly evident.
Morals must be weighed by how much benefit they offer to anyone or anything.
Why? Why
must this be the basis upon which morals ought to be weighed?
Can complete domination over another person ever lead to a benefit in a quicker or more efficient manner than allowing freedom? I say that it is impossible.
Well, that depends upon what sort of benefit you're talking about, and to whom. A slave owner would find it quicker and more efficient to force his slaves to work his fields for him than to negotiate wages with his slaves and persuade them to work for him of their own free will.
With what we understand about human motivation it is proven that people work harder and perform better when they are happy.
Perhaps in a modern, slavery-free workplace, but in the cotton fields of the South a couple hundred years ago, getting shot in the head, or whipped to death if you slacked off would have been powerful motivation to work
very hard.
We can weigh evidence to determine what is in everyone's best interest and what is in the interest of the few and create morals that reflect that evidence. If someone were to deny those morals in the face of evidence that they cannot refute, then their morals are incorrect. And because no one can make a valid case for slavery or genocide creating a larger overall good, there can be absolute morals without the use of God.
And how and who decides what is in everyone's best interest?
Also, the Christian contention isn't that one needs God in order to be good, to have objective morality, but that such morality exists and God is the best, the most reasonable explanation, for its existence.
Selah.
