Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
Topic's author
#931
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
PGA2.0 99 to 3RU7AL
Second, we need a fixed standard, a final reference point. God meets that requirement, we do not for He is unchanging and eternal.
For what do we need a fixed standard?
We need a fixed objective standard that is unchanging, or else we contravene the laws of logic and can't make sense of morality, the moral good. It can mean the opposite depending on who holds the belief, which means whose belief is true to what is? 

God could only meet that requirement if he exists, something so far no one has been able to prove.
There are many proofs for God's existence, and regarding morality, one of them is a necessary being to make sense of the moral good. Another is how do you make sense of morality if it is always in flux? How can something that is shifting and has no fixed address be better than something else. How do you compare 'good' to something that shifts?  'Better' concerning what? What is the best? You don't have one. Thus, how do you compare the good? It just shifted. 
#932
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Atheists  believe in atheism .....That is a contradiction in terms....Atheists lack belief in concepts.

Atheists might accept logical concepts as worthy of consideration....But they do not believe in them.

The GOD principle is a logical concept and worthy of consideration....But theistic belief in an unproven, specific deity, is illogical.
Topic's author
#933
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
PGA2.0 99 to 3RU7AL
Third, God is good, which means that to read about Him and understand Him is to see (mirrored) and understand what goodness is.[42] It just is who He is and He allowed us to find out the difference between His goodness and what is evil by giving humanity (in Adam) a choice to know evil. Evil is doing the opposite of what God has said as good. We understand evil since the Fall because God let us experience evil for a purpose, that we might perhaps seek out God, be reunited, and escape from the evil we do in our moral relativism.[43] With human beings, we witness this moral relativism all around us.[44] One society believes one thing is wrong and another the opposite. Just wait long enough and you will see people reversing their beliefs about goodness, such as I pointed out about abortion. The reason abortion is evil is that it does not treat all human life as equal. Some human beings are dehumanized, demonized, discriminated against, and diminished to the point of death.[45]
***

Third, God is good, which means that to read about Him and understand Him is to see (mirrored) and understand what goodness is.[42]
[42] [a] That is so sweet. You again [b] forgot to mention the reference standard to avoid clarity (the skeptic's friend). [c] Adolf Hitler was also good according to himself. [d] And we can also read about AH's goodness.
[a] Isn't it, though!

[b] Once again, the reference standard is the Bible. It claims to be His revelation to humanity. It is a very reasonable reference standard. First, the said Being inside the pages of these 66 different writings (by around 44 different authors united in themes), all claiming God is speaking to them (and that they are recording the conversation via the guidance of His Holy Spirit), is revealed as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal. 

[c] So what? Why does that make him good, morally speaking? Please explain why you believe he is good. Go ahead. I already challenged you to do this. Many fools think what they propose is good, like Hitler, but it misses the actual mark. 

[d] Yes, by other human beings who do not claim inspiration from the objective standard of truth, and most of them do not believe Hitler was good in what he did to a massive number of the German population. In fact, most of them are morally outraged by Hitler's evil. They correctly understand that what he did was not good at all, and you say it was good because Hitler thought so does not make it so.  

It just is who He is and He allowed us to find out the difference between His goodness and what is evil by giving humanity (in Adam) a choice to know evil. Evil is doing the opposite of what God has said as good. We understand evil since the Fall because God let us experience evil for a purpose, that we might perhaps seek out God, be reunited, and escape from the evil we do in our moral relativism.[43]
[43] Thus far your fairy tale.
Another claim without justification. You think just asserting something makes it so. Provide your proof so that I can get into a critique of it if you dare.

With human beings, we witness this moral relativism all around us.[44]
[44] Aha. That is what we see in the real world. It doesn't look compatible with the former.
Yes, we do witness it. The former being a true and fixed objective standard. Your argument does not necessarily follow. It can also follow that without God moral relativism is all we would expect to witness, and that is what we witness when human beings diverge from the path of righteousness - God Himself and His revelation. That is the alternative you deny. Denying something does not necessarily make it so. So, make more than just another assertion. Back up your claims. 

One society believes one thing is wrong and another the opposite. Just wait long enough and you will see people reversing their beliefs about goodness, such as I pointed out about abortion. The reason abortion is evil is that it does not treat all human life as equal. Some human beings are dehumanized, demonized, discriminated against, and diminished to the point of death.[45]
[45] The real world does have its problems, indeed.
So you recognize moral wrong in the treatment of the unborn! Hurray! Evil is doing contrary to the good, and to know the good, you must know the best to compare and contrast moral values. 
Topic's author
#934
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
@Amoranemix
He claims God's moral preferences are universal and authoritative and therefore he adopts God's moral preferences and in his opinion we should to.
The "YHWH" seems to have some strange "moral preferences".

Specifically when it comes to slaughtering the children of "non-believers" and keeping foreigners and their children and their grandchildren in "perpetual servitude".
1) God was judging evil and bringing evil people to account. That is reiterated over and over again in the Bible. 
2) If God takes an innocent life (allows evil people to take the life of an innocent child, for instance) because of the sins of others and their barbarity, that life will be restored to a better place, a place free of moral corruption and evil. 
Topic's author
#935
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Theweakeredge
Fact or presupposition? You were not there.
Wrong, while it is true that I wasn't there we have evidence for several mass extinction events, 5 to be precise.
All such evidence relies on how you interpret the data. You come to the data from a particular worldview. Thus, you look for evidence that supports such a worldview. You rely on the supposition the present is the key to interpreting the past because that is what we are left with. Many of these models work on a specific worldview that depends on anomalies that do become too many. Once that happens, as witnessed many times in our distant past's scientific inquiry, the model or paradigm is thrown out, and a better one is employed. If there is no better model, the current one with all its anomalies is continued.   

What specifically do you want me to glean from these links? I could provide you with hundreds of links that question such views, and we could then get into a link war where nothing is stated, and hundreds of pages have to be read without a point being identified. I read your first and second links and noticed some of the language used is opinionated, speculative, not factual. 

I.e., "Despite compelling evidence that these extinction events were probably driven by dramatic global environmental change...originally thought to have little macroecological or evolutionary consequence...originally thought to have little macroecological or evolutionary consequence...The challenge ahead is to establish the geographical extent...reconstructing the vegetation dynamics associated with these events..."

I.e., "Many aspects of these events are still debated...supposed extinction...are, at best, equivocal...unlikely...are considered to have been particularly detrimental...in the geological past...is associated with widespread stunting of marine organisms...Rebuilding of the marine ecosystem... a number of models have been constructed that can be used for comparative purposes...those associated with global warming...may be crucial...many aspects of these mass extinction events remain little understood, there is still much work to do."

Both links are highly speculative, folks. Where are the facts? You have scientists reconstructing what they believe are models of the past while working solely from the present. They don't observe the original conditions. They recreate them on lots of suppositions. When the anomalies pile up to a critical point, the models are rejected in favour of what scientists consider better models. And you put all your faith in these models and these scientists because you think they are better than the biblical model. 

 I agree that one event, the Flood, almost destroyed all life on earth.
Provide evidence for this proposition. 
A catastrophic event - millions of fossils buried in rock layers throughout the earth. 

Are there millions, billions, of fossils in rock layers throughout the earth? 

Is a catastrophic event or events necessary for this to happen? 

I will wait until you answer those two questions before replying. 
#936
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0
Science says a world wide flood never happened. Let’s say Noah’s Flood really did happen. Using naïve mathematics at the level of junior high school, it is possible to account for the present population of the world, because mathematically the population would grow exponentially. However, this is only true with naïve mathematics.
Proper mathematical calculations would have to make allowance for infant deaths (notice how in the Bible, no one ever dies in infancy), deaths from misadventure or disease (the Bible: ditto), plagues and pandemics that obliterate entire populations, famines and wars. Proper mathematical calculations would would also allow for adjustment at those intervals when we have good estimates of the world’s population, and then extrapolate for a higher or lower rate of increase to the next check point rather than assuming a constant growth rate.
We can start, not with a single family just over four thousand years ago, but with one million people thirty thousand years ago. Population growth was slow for thousands of years, sometimes going backwards because of famine or epidemics. It was only with improvements in agricultural productivity and, eventually, medical science, that populations actually began to grow quickly.
Topic's author
#937
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Theweakeredge

How does that event disprove the earth was made for life? Where else in the universe do you find the conditions NECESSARY for life? If the earth was not life-permitting,


VERB (permits, permitting, permitted)
  • 1 Give authorization or consent to (someone) to do something.
    with object and infinitive ‘the law permits councils to monitor any factory emitting smoke’
  • 1.1with object Authorize or give permission for (something )  ‘the country is not ready to permit any rice imports’
  • 1.2with object (of a thing, circumstance, or condition) provide an opportunity or scope for (something) to take place; make possible.  ‘some properties are too small to permit mechanized farming’
  • 1.3 permit of formal no object Allow for; admit of. ‘the camp permits of no really successful defense’
NOUN
often with modifier
  • An official document giving someone authorization to do something.
    ‘he is only in Britain on a work permit’
You are most likely referring to the 1.2/1.3 definitions of permit, and I will interpret your question using this definition, correct me if I'm mistaken.
First, you cut off the rest of my thought. Why did you not include it?  

Not allowing or not possible.

The fact that several massive events almost killed all life on earth (and has several times) kinda disproves even the earth was made for life, in fact, you would have to prove it was made at all to get any implications from its being there. 
Fact or presupposition? You were not there. I agree that one event, the Flood, almost destroyed all life on earth. How does that event disprove the earth was made for life? Where else in the universe do you find the conditions NECESSARY for life? If the earth was not life-permitting, why is there life on it? The fact is that the earth is life-permitting, and you do find life here and so far nowhere else that we know of in the universe. Furthermore, if the conditions were not right, the universe would not even be here. If the natural laws were not precise, the universe would not exist. Regarding thermodynamics, why has it not died a heat death? 

As for the theory of everything, "God is the reason" is reasonable, for a reason is a mindful process. 
That is the fuller context. 

How can (several) mass extinction event(s) disallow for life? Pretty simply, eliminate all life on the planet, or prevent said planet from being life permitting anymore. Not to mention we are not just talking about something "permitting" for life, we are talking about something designed for life, by the most intelligent being existent. Therefore mass extinction events that were not caused by that being would put doubt that that being even did create that thing.  That's why I doubt very heavily that a god created the earth at all, much less the universe.
At least you are revealing your bias! You believe that the universe and life in it are most likely not designed because of mass extinction. Thus, there is no intent behind either the universe of life, IYO. So that brings to mind how a universe that has no intention to it is sustainable? Why do things happen the way they do? For you no reason, as you give link after link full of reasons. The irony of it all. The universe would be here by chance happenstance unless you have another solution. 

I think your view is vastly more unreasonable than anything you can think of to disqualify the biblical account.

Fairy-tale scenario: "Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, the universe exploded into being (from nothing)!"

Consider the following: [a] Besides the heavens, hell, and earth, no other celestial bodies, planets, space stuff, etc, were mentioned beyond being created. There was no importance of such a thing, [b] god did not tell us why they created such a vast array of space. Therefore we have no knowledge if there is actually any use of this space, which would make it reasonable to conclude that all of that other space (besides arguably the solar system we inhabit as well as definitely the sun) is useless and not necessary for god to make. [c] Therefore its existence causes reasonable doubt. 
[a] The purpose of the Bible is not to display scientific knowledge but a knowledge of why we, as humans exist (God chose to create us for a purpose - to chose whether or not to know Him), and what went wrong with the universe (sin, thus God imposed curses on the earth and humanity for a PURPOSE - we are only given so much time to either know and enjoy God or reject Him. We observe the consequences of our actions [in Adam], yet we try to explain them away with other reasons).

That is a Christian perspective.

Your universe, devoid of God, has no purpose, no meaning, yet you constantly search for it and find it. Why would that be? Are you just creating a fool's paradise (imagining meaning from the meaningless)? I say you are unless God exists.  

[b] We can deduce why God created the vastness of space from the Bible. He did it to display His glory and power. So we know, provided God exists and has revealed (which is the biblical claim, and it is reasonable). 

[c] Not more doubtful than disbelief in God. That unbelief is unreasonable. Then you have no justification for the way things are other than sh_t happens. You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance. You have no justification for morality because morality is a mindful thing, and in a universe devoid of mind, how does life arise. Our life is meaningless in the big picture of such a universe. Why are you making it meaningful? You are not being consistent with your starting point; I am. There is no overall purpose for you in doing so. You are a tiny, insignificant human being in a vast expanse of meaninglessness once you discount God. You are trying to find meaning and reason in the meaningless. Go figure. It sounds insane to me, and people have gradually gone insane once they jettisoned God.  Life without God is ultimately dead-end meaningless.  

Yet, what do you find? You discover that there are laws, fixed certainties that you can make predictions and do science with. You can express these laws you discover are operating in precise, concise formulas. You find things that you assess as beautiful and meaningful for life (the anthropic principle), and your mind can only fathom the earth as necessary in sustaining life in the vastness of the universe. The comprehensibility of the universe is beyond your mind, yet you make countless speculations on it that are not necessary for its existence. You can't tell me why it exists. Without God, there is no reason.  
#938
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0
Proponents of "Creation Science", who hold to the belief that the planet Earth is only about 6,000 years old, preach that the vast sedimentary deposits of the Earth's crust were deposited during Noah's flood and that all the fossils found within that strata are the result of creatures that died during that flood. The Scriptures, the Earth's geology, and a little reasoning and common sense expose the fallacy of that false belief system. If these mountains existed before Noah's flood (which the Bible says they did), and these mountains were formed from uplifted sediments containing fossils (go climb a mountain and see them with your own eyes), then the creatures that these fossils came from all died sometime long BEFORE the great flood.
In the Appalachian mountain range, you can see deep road cuts exposing repeating sequences of coal, sandstone, siltstone, shale, coal again, shale, etc. The presence of neat, multiple seams of coal in the sequence indicates periods of time when the surface of the land was above sea level, allowing vegetation to flourish, die, and accumulate.
According to the Bible, Noah's flood only lasted one year; therefore, it is impossible for these strata to have been formed by a single global flood event. These formations are orderly and well differentiated, which is uncharacteristic of deposits left by rapid flooding and deposition. In many locations these sequences, which originally formed in a horizontal position, are now tilted at various angles; some are now vertical and others have been found to be turned upside down. The tectonic processes to accomplish this require millions of years. You can be sure it occurred long before Noah's days, not during a one-year flood.

Topic's author
#939
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Theweakeredge
Again, what do you want me to glean from these links? I opened the first one, and it was highly speculative and downright false. 

I.e., "Abiogenesis is the theory... Spontaneous generation was an early model for abiogenesis developed by Aristotle...flies formed directly from decaying material and logs gave rise to crocodiles...Louis Pasteur...disproved spontaneous generation...scientists...working to describe more probable models...which could explain the formation of life...propose a chemical-based theory for the evolution of life...hypothesized that Earth’s early atmosphere had mostly ammonia, water, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide and phosphate and very little oxygen and ozone...they thought...theory is also known as the Primordial Soup theory...propose that these organic molecules may have concentrated in certain locations...duplicated [pure speculation]the atmospheric conditions on Earth proposed by Oparin and Haldane...then introduced pulses of electrical sparks into the chamber [intentional agency]...simple molecules could have been created on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago... current research and debate about abiogenesis now centers around how and why organic molecules may have accumulated in certain areas on the early Earth...additional information that supports abiogenesis."

Again, notice all the lack of surety from the first link. The evidence has always been very debatable and doubtful. As I mentioned before, these theories are not plausible given the agency or lack of it - chance happenstance operating to organize and sustain particular conditions.   

Again, I could list all the presuppositions built into the theory and its beginning presuppositions, like life originating from a common ancestor. That is not demonstratable - we never witness it nor can we repeat it, but we can speculate about what might have happened by presupposing the commonality presupposes the common ancestor rather than a shared environment. We never witness macro-evolution, just micro, which Christianity supports. I could also show how the idea of macro-evolution caught on and how scientists ran with the Darwinian model despite the anomalies and presuppositions. 
#940
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0
Why did God create pediatric cancer? I am sure you will say He did it to display his glory and power.  Steve Hawking was confined to a wheel chair and 
was an atheist and he enjoyed life. He didn't believe in God and said an idea of an afterlife is "a fairy story."
He said “After my expectations were reduced to zero, every new day became a bonus. And I began to appreciate everything I did have.” 
“I don’t have much positive to say about motor neuron disease. But it taught me not to pity myself, because others were worse off and to get on with what I still could do."
Remember that he was on The Big Bang Theory a number of times.
Topic's author
#941
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ethang5
Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard.
This is an incorrect statement in that God will NOT do "whatever". The statement implies,

Anything God does is good and just according to his own standard.

This statement is untrue, and not the position of the bible. The bible's position is, because all of God's actions are morally good, there are some actions God cannot do, ie, morally bad actions, like lie.

Citing this inability as a weakness of God does nothing to remedy the incorrectness of the original comment that "Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard."
Ethang5, who are you addressing? 
#942
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@PGA2.0
All such evidence relies on how you interpret the data. You come to the data from a particular worldview. Thus, you look for evidence that supports such a worldview. You rely on the supposition the present is the key to interpreting the past because that is what we are left with. Many of these models work on a specific worldview that depends on anomalies that do become too many. Once that happens, as witnessed many times in our distant past's scientific inquiry, the model or paradigm is thrown out, and a better one is employed. If there is no better model, the current one with all its anomalies is continued.   
Wrong! You don't base the evidence on ANY presuppositions. The only two presuppositions you have to necessarily assume to get anywhere is that our reality is true, and that logic is real, nothing else is necessary. The model that is "current" is the model that has the most explanatory power, the one that is the best, we work towards that best explanation, and this is currently it. 


What specifically do you want me to glean from these links? I could provide you with hundreds of links that question such views, and we could then get into a link war where nothing is stated, and hundreds of pages have to be read without a point being identified. I read your first and second links and noticed some of the language used is opinionated, speculative, not factual. 
You took two sources and cherry-picked specific things that would align with your version of events, these things did most likely occur, you provide no discredit besides cherry-picking and not understanding how science works. Science isn't a collection of facts, its the observation of reality, and the scientific method is a process for finding the best and most verified version of that. 

In fact, neither of these are speculative, they are saying, "We thought this, we were wrong, and here's why" that's not speculative, you should change your mind based ont he most rational and reasonable explanation, your entire point isn't' even a good one, its just one that doesn't understand how basic proof works, as I have already pointed out. Link your sources, they have to actually be credible to be worth any merit, conspiracy nuts aren't credible. 

Both links are highly speculative, folks. Where are the facts? You have scientists reconstructing what they believe are models of the past while working solely from the present. They don't observe the original conditions. They recreate them on lots of suppositions. When the anomalies pile up to a critical point, the models are rejected in favour of what scientists consider better models. And you put all your faith in these models and these scientists because you think they are better than the biblical mode
There are like 6 sources! Did you ignore them? No? You just found cherry-picked sentences that taken out of context can be construed to fit your narrative? Hmm... it almost reminds me of how you quote the bible, not the point however, they reconstruct what were the past models to the best anyone can demonstrate, if you have better demonstrations, go ahead, demonstrate with empirical data and logically sound reasoning what you think the past was like because you have no scientific authority, reconstructing things is how we have made a vast leap in medical progress, technology etcetera, again, a basic misunderstanding of science. 


A catastrophic event - millions of fossils buried in rock layers throughout the earth. 

Are there millions, billions, of fossils in rock layers throughout the earth? 

Is a catastrophic event or events necessary for this to happen? 

I will wait until you answer those two questions before replying. 
No no no, you have to prove that this was caused by one global flood, that's not evidence of anything, you've thrown out a bunch of points without linking anything else.

Edit: Not linking as in sourcing, linking as in link a fact to a conclusion logically
#943
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
First, you cut off the rest of my thought. Why did you not include it?  

Not allowing or not possible.
Because it's A) An informal colloquial definition, and B) Redundant


Fact or presupposition? You were not there. I agree that one event, the Flood, almost destroyed all life on earth. How does that event disprove the earth was made for life? Where else in the universe do you find the conditions NECESSARY for life? If the earth was not life-permitting, why is there life on it? The fact is that the earth is life-permitting, and you do find life here and so far nowhere else that we know of in the universe. Furthermore, if the conditions were not right, the universe would not even be here. If the natural laws were not precise, the universe would not exist. Regarding thermodynamics, why has it not died a heat death? 

As for the theory of everything, "God is the reason" is reasonable, for a reason is a mindful process. 
I did include that part, I broke it up into sections to question your individual claims, but suuure, let's do this instead. Again, fact, "1A thing that is known or proved to be true" Not a presupposition, that would be you with god. Again, you haven't proven a global flood, so let's not even go there, and the fact that a PERFECT, OMNIPOTENT, OMNIPRESENT, etc, etc being made this world to support life, ANY mistakes or flaws should cause  room to doubt, and the massive fuck up that is this earth, which is barely life-supporting because so many one-things, could kill almost everything, is even further evidence that it was not created to support life and merely, happens to. 

Also, that last sentence, makes literally no sense, what do you mean? 

""God is the reason" is reasonable," That is circular reasoning if If I've ever seen it, and "For a reason is a mindful process" also doesn't explain anything, that's you not typing a rebuttal properly. 


At least you are revealing your bias! You believe that the universe and life in it are most likely not designed because of mass extinction. Thus, there is no intent behind either the universe of life, IYO. So that brings to mind how a universe that has no intention to it is sustainable? Why do things happen the way they do? For you no reason, as you give link after link full of reasons. The irony of it all. The universe would be here by chance happenstance unless you have another solution. 

I think your view is vastly more unreasonable than anything you can think of to disqualify the biblical account.
Wrong, that's one reason why I don't think it was designed, and that wasn't a bias, I came to that conclusion from sorting through the literal libraries of evidence to support my case, the other major reason is that there has been no demonstrated intent behind the universe, there has been no demonstrated god either, so no that is not the only reason, but you haven't even proven that! You haven't even disproven my point, all you've done is gish gallop away, content with your position that proves literally nothing, as you have not given any opposing evidence. No, this is you appealing to ignorance, a logical fallacy, this is dismissed because as another said, you are the king of fallacies. 

I don't care if you "think" my view is unreasonable, I want you to prove it's unreasonable which you haven't done at all. 


The purpose of the Bible is not to display scientific knowledge but a knowledge of why we, as humans exist (God chose to create us for a purpose - to chose whether or not to know Him), and what went wrong with the universe (sin, thus God imposed curses on the earth and humanity for a PURPOSE - we are only given so much time to either know and enjoy God or reject Him. We observe the consequences of our actions [in Adam], yet we try to explain them away with other reasons).
Okay... I hate to tell you this but.... cool story bro, what does that prove? Either we have an inherent purpose or we don't I say there hasn't been one demonstration and that more than likely we don't. You say there is and haven't proven it. Prove it. That's a neat story and everything, maybe it might have inspired some hope in me once upon a time, but now it doesn't as appeals to emotions don't move me unless your my boyfriend, and you don't seem to be him. I don't reject god because one hasn't been demonstrated to exist to reject, I am convinced that god most likely doesn't exist, boom, that's all it is. There is no rejection, that implies that he exists fundamentally and you haven't proven that.


Your universe, devoid of God, has no purpose, no meaning, yet you constantly search for it and find it. Why would that be? Are you just creating a fool's paradise (imagining meaning from the meaningless)? I say you are unless God exists.  
You can call it whatever you want, no one has an objective meaning, or purpose, what makes it meaningful to us as humans is that we determine that purpose, "I say" isn't a logical argument, make one of those and maybe we can talk, until then, you seem to be spouting your beliefs and parsing them as facts, which, you haven't proven. 



 We can deduce why God created the vastness of space from the Bible. He did it to display His glory and power. So we know, provided God exists and has revealed (which is the biblical claim, and it is reasonable). 
No, first, you would have to prove that god exists, second, you would have to prove that god could do that, third, you would have to prove that god did do that, fourth, you would have to prove that bible is accurate. Also, no, you claiming something isn't reasonable, it's you making an assertion, that isn't a logical argument, this is you asserting them and ad hoc declaring them to be the truth. 


Not more doubtful than disbelief in God. That unbelief is unreasonable. Then you have no justification for the way things are other than sh_t happens. You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance. You have no justification for morality because morality is a mindful thing, and in a universe devoid of mind, how does life arise. Our life is meaningless in the big picture of such a universe. Why are you making it meaningful? You are not being consistent with your starting point; I am. There is no overall purpose for you in doing so. You are a tiny, insignificant human being in a vast expanse of meaninglessness once you discount God. You are trying to find meaning and reason in the meaningless. Go figure. It sounds insane to me, and people have gradually gone insane once they jettisoned God.  Life without God is ultimately dead-end meaningless.  
Wrong on literally all accounts, lets break this down. 


Not more doubtful than disbelief in God.
Tu quoque, even if you had a point here, it doesn't prove that god exists. 1 fallacy. 


That unbelief is unreasonable
Let's see your reasoning for that claim. 


Then you have no justification for the way things are other than sh_t happens
Yes... because that's the only thing we can demonstrate happening, why is this unreasonable? Were you hoping your crude framing of what reality is would scare me off? Things happen, we don't know exactly what started the first thing, but you claiming "god" isn't proof either, its you asserting something. You are drawing a conclusion from reasoning that doesn't logically follow, Non sequitur. 2 Fallacies. 


You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance.
The why doesn't really matter all that much, just that it did happen, you would have to prove that someone caused it... this isn't a point against me, this is another appeal to ignorance, 3 fallacies. 


You have no justification for morality because morality is a mindful thing, and in a universe devoid of mind, how does life arise. Our life is meaningless in the big picture of such a universe. Why are you making it meaningful?
Not objective morality, but neither does a god... because a god would be making these laws.... from a mind... so it's still subjective... but also, because it's useful? I'm a human you're a human, regardless of whether it's "objectively" linked, doesn't much matter, as we can derive definite benefits for everyone from them. The justification doesn't matter in this particular instance because we can almost do that, we can base it on objective values and link them to morality, is it a bit arbitrary? Yes, is it less so than your god going, "Might makes right!" Yes.  Gods of the gap's fallacy much? 4 fallacies.


and in a universe devoid of mind, how does life arise.
Ah, sorry I almost missed the assumption you snuck in there. Prove that life has to come from the mind, mind and the brain are synonymous, until proven otherwise, we should not assume that they are different, as Occam's Razor would apply. This isn't really a fallacy, more of a presumption on your part with no evidence. Overall, prove that life requires a mind to exist.


You are not being consistent with your starting point; I am. There is no overall purpose for you in doing so. You are a tiny, insignificant human being in a vast expanse of meaninglessness once you discount God. You are trying to find meaning and reason in the meaningless
No, I'm doing what's called, "being realistic", yes it's true that factually speaking there is no meaning in the universe, but the negative connotation is from your own biases, it's a neutral term by definition. We can make our own purpose just fine, and if we apply it, it is much more reasonable to follow that than your pathetic take.  Question, if you suddenly stopped believing in god would you kill yourself? Because if that's the case then you just keep on believing, but that's not how the real world actually works, go figure. 


Go figure. It sounds insane to me, and people have gradually gone insane once they jettisoned God.  Life without God is ultimately dead-end meaningless.  
From an objective universal scale? Sure. Are you the universe? No, we're both humans, so to us it very much isn't meaningless. Also that's a bald assertion, scientists and people in wealthier, happier countries are typically happier, more educated, better off, and here's a database of graphs, figures, and such proving my point:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1h4kSiruDDY5qPXPc18b96OotSEwGp8Vy Again, no fallacy, just you being factually incorrect.


Yet, what do you find? You discover that there are laws, fixed certainties that you can make predictions and do science with. You can express these laws you discover are operating in precise, concise formulas. You find things that you assess as beautiful and meaningful for life (the anthropic principle), and your mind can only fathom the earth as necessary in sustaining life in the vastness of the universe. The comprehensibility of the universe is beyond your mind, yet you make countless speculations on it that are not necessary for its existence. You can't tell me why it exists. Without God, there is no reason.  
No... they aren't... some of them are sure, but not all of them, also.... so what? That's why there are so many laws, the formulas aren't how they function, that's how we can express them in their best form, your "neat" is your biases. These aren't "speculations" these are facts, facts that you refuse to accept because then there wouldn't be any reasons to believe beyond "hope". Even without these, you have on proof for the god you speculate to have created anything, before you can postulate that something created something else, you first have to prove that it exists, which you haven't. 
#944
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, notice all the lack of surety from the first link. The evidence has always been very debatable and doubtful. As I mentioned before, these theories are not plausible given the agency or lack of it - chance happenstance operating to organize and sustain particular conditions.   
What? Do you only check the very first link? Second again, this suffers from the exact same problem as your last one, you can't actually debunk them, because you have no idea how to, and because you haven't shown any evidence to support your claims. Also, again cherry-picking, notice the little ellipses, "folks" that's part of the quote that he left out, not to mention you haven't proven that a mind is needed to create life, this is more appeals to ignorance, appeals to emotions, and assumptions. 


Again, I could list all the presuppositions built into the theory and its beginning presuppositions, like life originating from a common ancestor. That is not demonstratable - we never witness it nor can we repeat it, but we can speculate about what might have happened by presupposing the commonality presupposes the common ancestor rather than a shared environment. We never witness macro-evolution, just micro, which Christianity supports. I could also show how the idea of macro-evolution caught on and how scientists ran with the Darwinian model despite the anomalies and presuppositions. 
That is very demonstratable and has been demonstrated time and time again, in fact, some of the sources go into it! (If you don't know which one, then you haven't read them, as you probably didn't, because you have consistently only tried attacking the first source, but you don't even do that here), not to mention you don't even attempt to ever point out presumptions in sources just that they are "speculative" which flatly wrong. You don't need to reconstruct things to find evidence of it, you can find signs of that thing, such as CBR being evidence of the big bang, we don't need to see it directly happen to prove that it did, that's you, once again, not understanding science. You have literally presented no evidence here, and have no debunked a single source its just you claiming things.
#945
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm afraid that rights are mostly granted by mob democracy. A man's right to life and liberty can be taken away by any group larger, better armed and/or better organized than his. The mechanism is and always has been concerned citizens fighting against the status quo for the betterment of the status quo. [**]
Topic's author
#946
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
@Amoranemix
Then your system of thought is irrational and illogical, as I have explained before. I don't think I can reason with you. 
I agree, we're talking past each other , and I don't have the time to sort through your repetitive screeds. I'll go on not torturing little kids for fun even though I don't believe in god.
My "repetitive screeds" are an attempt to obtain accountability from the atheistic worldview. IMO, you guys pick and choose what you will answer and refuse to look at your starting presuppositions and why they make no sense. In a meaningless universe where you are a biological bag of atoms and derive your morality from genetic and environmental factors, why is it wrong to torture or kill innocent human beings? How does the atheistic worldview account for objective moral values? You borrow from the Christian worldview in thinking it is wrong. Thus, I continually point out how inconsistent the atheist is in their thinking. Many atheists on this forum admit that morality is a relative preference. They admit that it was good to murder the undesirables of the German society for Hitler, as he understood the good. So Amoranemix sees this as an actual good for Hitler. 

AMORANEMIX:  "Adolf Hitler (AH) was necessary for us to know what is good according to AH and we have what is best according to AH to compare values against."

Amoranemix can not identify something really wrong because he has no absolute, objective standard to identify the good. Thus he is willing to concede that people make up good according to their preferences. For him, what Hitler did was evil, but for Hitler, it was good (moral relativism). It is all based on preference. You see, he can't say that what Hitler did was wrong for Hitler. He does not recognize it as wrong for Hitler. He does not recognize an absolute, objective standard, so for some, torturing little children for fun would be good, such as for the Marquis de Sade.

ME: "In Hitler's Germany, the 'codified mob rule' or law was to round up Jews and other undesirables' and kill them. Fine, unless you happen to be a Jew, right? Then the practice is definitely wrong.[33]"

AMORANEMIX: "[33] According to you perhaps and according to me, but not according to the Nazis."

Amoranemix does not see this as wrong for those who choose to see it that way. He cannot recognize an absolute, universal wrong. It is absurd, and yet he is consistent with the atheist worldview. Morality is whatever you make it with such a worldview because there is no absolute standard. The atheist is usually inconsistent with his/her belief when they say, "I'll go on not torturing little kids for fun even though I don't believe in god." So you will, but what about those other relativists who think differently? Unless you have an absolute standard, all you are doing is expressing your personal opinion. Can you say it is absolutely, universally, objectively wrong? If you can, then what is your absolute, objective, unchanging, universal standard in doing so? Let's see how consistent you are with atheism (a universe in which our lives are ultimately meaningless). 



Topic's author
#947
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Theweakeredge
[1] What is "chance?"
Lexico (An English and Spanish Oxford Dictionary, Thesaurus) defines chance as the following:

NOUN
  • 1 A possibility of something happening.
    ‘there is a chance of winning the raffle’
  • 1.1 chances The probability of something desirable happening. 'he played down his chances of becoming chairman
  • 1.2 in singular An opportunity to do or achieve something. ‘I gave her a chance to answer’
  • 2 mass noun The occurrence of events in the absence of any obvious intention or cause. ‘he met his brother by chance’
ADJECTIVE
attributive
  • Fortuitous; accidental.
    ‘a chance meeting’
    More example sentences
VERB
  • 1 no object, with infinitive Do something by accident or without intending to.
    ‘he was very effusive if they chanced to meet’
  • 1.1 chance upon/on/across Find or see by accident. ‘he chanced upon an interesting advertisement’
  • 2 informal with object Do (something) despite its being dangerous or of uncertain outcome.
In this case I am referring to the 2nd definition of chance under nouns:

Chance - "The occurrence of events in the absence of any obvious intention or cause."
The absence of an obvious cause or intentionality. 


Show me it has the ability to do anything.
Chance is [b] not an agent or something that causes things, but a noun to refer to  [c] an event does not have an intention or cause. It can also be an adjective to describe something that has happened in what may seem unfavorable circumstances. [a] This seems like either semantics or you being dishonest. 
[a] I'm not dishonest, just working with your definition. So, it is your semantics.

[b] You admit it has no intent or agency to do anything. So nothing happened. That is what you are saying.

[c] If there is no cause, nothing happened. You are speaking of something from nothing (no cause) since the universe began to exist, or are you thinking it is eternal? It began to exist from nothing, for there was no cause for it. Do you understand the senselessness of that? This once again shows the inconsistency of your thinking. 
#948
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
2) If a psycho-killer takes an innocent life (allows evil people to take the life of an innocent child, for instance) because of the sins of others and their barbarity, that life will be restored to a better place, a place free of moral corruption and evil.

This statement basically exonerates the slaughter of every single "innocent".
#949
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
In a meaningless universe where you are a biological bag of atoms and derive your morality from genetic and environmental factors, why is it wrong to torture or kill innocent human beings?
Have you ever heard of Kant's categorical imperative? - - [LINK]
Topic's author
#950
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Theweakeredge

[a] Any god that did not exist [b] would not be God.
Yes it would. Simply not your definition of god. 
[a] (^8 

"Any god that does not exist would not be God." Are you saying that a being who does not exist can be God? 

[b] If God is not the supreme being of which no greater can be thought of then that being is not God. There would be a greater being. 


God, as a supernatural Being, is the Occam razor of explanations.
This is incorrect, because [a] you are assuming supernatural things to exist, that a god exists, that the god is super natural, that the god did x or y, and that the god a, b, c characteristics. So no, this is not true either.
[a] And you are assuming supernatural beings do not exist. For you, nature is all that there is then. How do you know that? You don't. You assume it. Let's face it, all the different theories of the universe are complicated explanations that don't really answer the question of existence. It is not simple for you to answer why something exists rather than nothing, or how it can. If you think otherwise, then show your proof on how the universe does exist and how existence can come from nothing (no supernatural for you; nothing that supersedes the natural). A supreme, ultimate, omniscient Being who just speaks the universe into existence is far simpler.  

Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”

Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.

Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years;

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”

Then God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kind: livestock and crawling things and animals of the earth according to their kind”; and it was so.

Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.”

Very simple. God said, and it was so. 

#951
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Atheists  believe in atheism .....That is a contradiction in terms....Atheists lack belief in concepts.
I'd say more specifically, they simply do not identify themselves as "THEISTS" (regardless of any specific belief or non-belief).

Atheists might accept logical concepts as worthy of consideration....But they do not believe in them.
I'm not sure this particular statement applies to "ATHEISM" specifically (maybe you're thinking of "SKEPTICISM").

The GOD principle is a logical concept and worthy of consideration....But theistic belief in an unproven, specific deity, is illogical.
I'd go a step further and say that EVEN IFF something like "YHWH" was accepted as an AXIOM (ONTOLOGICAL FACT), that even then, following the supposed teachings of such a thing would be immoral (logically incoherent).

In other words, "YHWH" is a FACT and "The Bible" is 100% TRUE, now what?  Do you want everyone to stop mixing their fabrics and stone all divorcees to death?
#952
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@PGA2.0
Busy with classes so I'll give more in depth rebuttals later, but these are literally more assertions, also, begging the question to that definition of god, also not a very good one, as the fallacies are readily apparent, again, I'll bite into it later.
#953
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
With the power ofthe Force I read till post 650.

@PGA2.0
I'll assume that when you talk about having what is necassary, you mean necessary for the existence of morality.
In the mean time I noticed you keep systematically omitting to mention the reference moral standard to avoid clarity (the skeptic's friend).


Theonly thing that is "necessary" for moral principles to beconsidered true is CONSENSUS.
PGA2.0 449
So Hitler wasright in killing over six million Jews, correct? After all, theGermans were indoctrinated into thinking the Jew was not as human asthe majority of Germans.
That there was consensus in German society about the Shoah is debatable. In addition, the little consensus there was, was based largely on misinformation. Morever, there is no true consensus, because we are disagreeing with it.
Choose an example of moral principles in a society there was consensus around and that we approve of, so that there is true consensus. Then tell whether these can be considered true.

Wouldn't thegod($) be able to forgive such a frail worm?
PGA2.0 457
How does thatmeet the requirements of justice? Will a good judge wink at evil?Will he dismiss it as insignificant/unimportant? How would that begood? A person suffered injustice, lost their lives, and there is nopenalty???
In Kim Jong Un's North Korea justice demands that those who criticize The Great Leader be sent to reeducation camps. A good judge there will not dismiss a transgression like that as insignificant or unimportant. How would that be good? A person suffered injustice, was chided, and there would be no penalty?!

PGA2.0 478 to SkepticalOne
[ . . . ] Also,all human life is created in the image and likeness of God, thereforeit is God's right to give and take life (human beings are only givena short time on this earth to come to or reject God), not ours. Thereare also numerous verses I could employ to show that God values theunborn human being.
Assuming that human life were created in the image of God, how would it follow that God has the right to give and take it ?

[ . . . ], sheshould be allowed to kill another human being because she no longerwants to take responsibility?
It's a lot likepeople who are deported back into hostile territory after fleeing fortheir lives.
PGA2.0 490
I believe you arenot being serious about what the unborn is. Let me ask you again - Isit okay to kill innocent human beings? Can you answer that simplequestion? Stop skirting the issue.
What eludes you, presumably because that is impossible in your fictional worldview, is that it is possible to be both guilty and innocent (an apparent contradiction), namely innocent of one thing and guilty of another. Hence, whether it is OK to kill an innocent human, would depend onthe circumstances.

Is deportation"murder" when it directly leads to someone's death?
PGA2.0 490
Again, you are changing the subject. It is called deflecting.
Aha, that is what is called what you continuously did in our debate on debate.org : deflection.

PGA2.0 491 to 3RU7AL
So you are discriminating against some innocent human beings because of their development??? Would it be okay to discriminate against you if your IQ was not as great as another? How about discrimination against a female toddler or infant because she is not as developed physically as a grown-up woman?
Would it be OK to discriminate against you if you were not human ?

3RU7AL to PGA2.0
What does your law say is appropriate if your neighbor is threatening you and or your family?
PGA2.0 512
OT or NT?

IMO, obey the law of the land, love your neighbour, be kind, show the same grace and mercy that you have received from God, bless those who persecute you, keep no record of wrongs, leave justice or revenge to God and the law in the land, repay evil with good, turn the other cheek where you are concerned[110], but when others are concerned, to protect them against harm.
[110] You have tried to justify the subjugation of Canaanites and Philistines by the Israelites by labelling these people as wicked. That did not qualify as repaying evil with good, nor as turning the other cheeck. Were God's orders to subjugate those people then in fact against the law ?

PGA2.0 369
I have told you many times. You do not listen. It is immoral because if offends the righteousness of God.[*] It is wrong if there is an objective standard that we can measure values against that is fix and best. If not, nothing ultimately matters and morality becomes nothing more than subjective individual or group preference. [ . . . ]
[*] This is an unclear standard. Please either offer a reliable metric for determining why things or offensive in this manner or I will be forced to conclude that you are using a standard which yo uh do not actually understand which is not helpful to the conversation.
PGA2.0 512
I offered the reason why. God is a necessary Being. He is omniscient, knowing all things. How is such a standard unclear?[111] How can you have something that is anything other than preference without a fixed, objective best? God fits the criterion that you do not (and cannot demonstrate that is necessary).
[111] That is not even a standard. I think he was asking what or how something offends the righteousness of God. It seems that offends the righteousness of God whatever God dislikes. For example, God prefers that people worship him in stead of some other god and therefore decides that worshipping another god offends his righteousness.

If we examine the source material (the bible) the Yahweh appears to be a cruel, capricious, jealous, vengeful, genocidal, egomaniacal maniac whose ten most important rules deal mostly with his own vanity and do not address rape or owning people as property at all and elsewhere in the book deals with these issues very unsatisfactorilly.
PGA2.0 513
How is it cruelto punish wickedness? Why is it wrong for God to jealously protec twhat is right and good? Why is it wrong to take vengeance(accountability for the wrong) on injustice?[112]
Those who do not recognize the majesty and awesome glory of God put their own above Him in their boasting and puffed-up self. It is not vanity to point to Himself for guidance but wisdom.[113]
[112] The problem is that whether something is cruel or wicked is a matter of opinion and that not everyone shares your or God's opinion. Understandably God does not hold those who disagree with him in high regard, but neither did Adolf Hitler, nor do Kim Jong Un and Bashar all Assad. Yet you don't excuse their behaviour with indignated questions like that. When the latter bombs civilians, you dont ask : “How is it cruel to punish wickedness? Why is it wrong for Bashar to jealously protectwhat is right and good?” Why ? Because you are strongly biased infavour of God. God is your preference.
[113] That God has majesty and awesome glory has yet to be demonstrated. That God exists as well.

Very revealing.It does not matter to you that innocent human beings are allowed to die for the want of a kidney. Would it matter to you if someone chose to allow your innocent ten-year-old die rather than donate a kidney?[*] If so, then you have a double-standard and you are not consistent. Consistency is a sign or indicator that something is dreadfully wrong with your logic.
PGA2.0 517
[*] You are talking in hypotheticals. I am talking in terms of what is really happening.

Another person isnot responsible for my ten-year-old. You are placing the responsibility on them. Why are you assuming they are responsible? M yten-year-old's health in such a case may very well be beyond my control to help. I would be disappointed, even heartbroken, if they died or if someone volunteered to give a kidney, then chickened out, but I have no right to force another person to give their kidney unless that person signs a contract to do so. Usually, a money exchange takes place in such contracts.
What relevance does reponsibility have ? You assume without justification that a stranger would require to donate a kidney only if they are responsible for the child. However, in case of unwanted pregnancy, you did not give responsibility as a reason to keep the foetus alive. The right of the foetus to live seemed sufficient for the mother to be obligated to sustain it. Why does that not suffice in case of 10-year old in need of a kidney ? Why is the stranger allowed to violate the child's body without its consent to kill the child by refusing to give a kidney ?

P.S.S. Human interpretation of the'will of God' isn't a fixed reference point either and can be used to support atrocities and oppose equality. (Holocaust, apartheid,Transatlantic slave trade)
PGA2.0 520
The Holocaust, Apartheid, transatlantic slavery are not biblical or OT slavery but a misinterpretation.
Don't forget the Crusades also.
The point is that reality demonstrates that your god doesn't solve the problems you complain about.
What would solve the problems you keep complaining about, and thus would be necessary for that, is that everyone agrees. That could theoretically happen by everyone inventing the same god and adopting his morality. Of course, that is not realistic. With the help of an actual, real god that may be feasible. Your god is clearly insufficient, either because he doesn't exist or because he is a paltry communicator. His morality also rings poorly with many people.

PGA2.0 567 to SkepticalOne
Hosea 10:1-4(NASB)
Retribution for Israel’s Sin
[ . . . ]
Over and over, God sends prophets and teachers to warn them to return to Him, but they will not listen. So, He gives them the consequences of their sin.
To me that behaviour is immoral. To you and presumably to God, it is moral. Contrary to what you pretend I dont try to impose my preference upon you. You on the other hand, try to impose your preference upon skeptics. You have however so far been unable to give good reasons for skeptics to adopt them. Things like being fixed and all-knowing may be important to you, but skeptics don't care about those. On top of that, you accused me of being hypocritical for trying to impose my preference on you.

#954
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0
See the research paper: Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism
Abstract:
Beliefs profoundly affect people's lives, but their cognitive and neural pathways are poorly understood. Although previous research has identified the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) as critical to representing religious beliefs, the means by which vmPFC enables religious belief is uncertain. We hypothesized that the vmPFC represents diverse religious beliefs and that a vmPFC lesion would be associated with religious fundamentalism, or the narrowing of religious beliefs. To test this prediction, we assessed religious adherence with a widely-used religious fundamentalism scale in a large sample of 119 patients with penetrating traumatic brain injury (pTBI). If the vmPFC is crucial to modulating diverse personal religious beliefs, we predicted that pTBI patients with lesions to the vmPFC would exhibit greater fundamentalism, and that this would be modulated by cognitive flexibility and trait openness. Instead, we found that participants with dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) lesions have fundamentalist beliefs similar to patients with vmPFC lesions and that the effect of a dlPFC lesion on fundamentalism was significantly mediated by decreased cognitive flexibility and openness. These findings indicate that cognitive flexibility and openness are necessary for flexible and adaptive religious commitment, and that such diversity of religious thought is dependent on dlPFC functionality.
Topic's author
#955
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Theweakeredge
1. With Him, there is a reason for the universe.
You could mean this a couple of different ways:

Perhaps you mean to say that with God, there is a reason for the existence of the universe, that he created it. If this is what you meant then it fairly easy to refute by pointing out that anything could possibly explain a universe would have the standard that god does for existing. 
I am saying that without a reasoning being who created the universe, the universe is without reason for its existence. It just is. And I continually point out that you find reason after reason for the way the universe works. Why would that be so in a chance happenstance universe? Why would you EXPECT to find uniformity of nature (i.e., nature's laws and their sustainability)? There would be no reason that you should. 

If "Nature" is all, there is then nothing that transcends it.

Do you understand what nothing is? It is not a thing - no thing. 'Nothing' is not something. Do you understand that? Thus you either have to believe the universe began to exist from nothing (an impossibility - self-creation), or you have to believe the universe is eternal (impossible to count or get to infinity from the present). Which is it? Not simple to explain, is it? It requires a lot of juggling things that do not make sense.

So, I will await your answer so we can proceed further. 

The cause of the universe cannot be itself. That would mean it would have to exist before it existed, a self-refuting argument. I.e., It would have to exist before it could create itself.

In another sense you could mean this give the universe reason, as in some reason to exist more philosophically speaking, this doesn't really matter, nor would it prove the existence of a god, it would simply mean that if he did exist he could do this, sorry.
Your second premise is hard to understand because of how you framed it, perhaps a spelling omission. What does this mean - "you could mean this give the universe reason?" Do you mean, "you could mean this gives the universe reason?" What gives the universe meaning - God! 

As I have stated elsewhere, we discover all kinds of reasons for the existence of things in the universe. You can find the causal tree of explanations (thus reason) by tracing everything back to the Big Bang, then no further. Thus, without God, why would this be? First, why would you expect to find reasons for things in an unreasoning, pure chance universe? There is no reason that you would, yet you do. The simple explanation, there is a God behind the universe, Someone sufficient to explain it and give the reason for its existence. 

You can trace the reason (causes) back to the universe's start but no further, based on the Big Bang Model. Time had a beginning; it is finite. Space had a beginning (the Friedman-Lemaitre model, among other reasons, since it is expanding from this cosmological singularity). It is reasonable to say that energy (2nd law of thermodynamics/a closed system) and matter had a beginning because they exist within the space-time framework or continuum. 

So, we see that there is a cause for every effect, with one exception in your atheistic framework, the Big Bang (taxicab fallacy). An uncaused cause - God - is a simple explanation for the cause of the universe. He is timeless (eternal) and transcendent (beyond the natural). The atheist is inconsistent once again. He can find a cause for everything that has a beginning until he gets to why something exists rather than nothing. In fact, the atheist has no answer to life's ultimate questions. He cannot answer why. He/she says no explanation is needed. Again, he/she is inconsistent because they find a reason for everything except these ultimate questions.

If you meant something else, please do clarify, and if you meant either of those two things, well... yeah just refuted them.


2. God has what is necessary for the universe. He transcends time and space, so He is not of the physical realm, which began.
[a] You would be forced to demonstrate this beings existence, it isn't unreasonable to say that claiming an agent who transcends space and time is a [b] rather huge claim, and would [c] require proportionate evidence. Not to mention, again, just because if something was true it would explain x or y, does not logically follow that that something is true.
[a] Can you provide some reason why the universe and natural realm began to exist? If the universe is all there is, or was, or will ever be (Carl Sagan), why would there be a reason? A necessary being is a sufficient reason, one that makes sense. You are not that being. So far, you have no agency for the beginning. You admit chance is not an agent. Thus, you have agency from the Big Bang forward but an insufficient cause (none) and no agency for the Big Bang.

The Christian worldview can make sense of the universe, cause and effect, agency and intention, and reason. It is reasonable to believe. Your worldview is not. 

[b] So are atheistic claims that either there is no reason or cause for the universe or the Big Bang (which you admit chance has no agency or intent) is the cause. Is this not also a huge claim? You bet it is—another hypocritical double-standard by the atheist. 

[c] We find causes and reasons for everything from what an atheist claims is a chance happenstance universe. Why not for the universe? It does have an explanation that you do not want to accept. God would be a sufficient explanation.  We find the anthropic principle and fine-tuning at work from what we understand about the universe.  We find laws, principles that don't make sense from chance happenstance. We, as human beings, make laws and understand that laws require a lawgiver. So, several logical and philosophical reasons give proportional evidence of God, not to mention the reasonableness of the Bible, of which prophecy has reasonable historical verification.   

3. He is the simplest reason since the Big Bang can morph into many other scenarios, with black holes, wormholes, an expanding and contracting universe, a steady-state universe, multiverses, etc.
No, first of all this is a straw man of Occam's razor, which is to make the least assumptions possible, not be the simplest possible. Lexico says this:
NOUN
  • The principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made [a] than are necessary. The principle is often invoked to defend reductionism or nominalism.
Second of all, god would not raise to the level of some of these theories or hypothesis, as they each have some contingent or empirical evidence to support them, whereas the [b] god proposition only has, "Would make sense [c] given the facts" [d] with no direct evidence supporting it. As well as it would make one assume bigger and more things, the level of the assumption also matters here. 
[a] "Than is necessary." The universe, if it had a beginning, is not necessary. The least assumption is God created. 

[b] God is sufficient in making sense of the universe. Blind, indifferent, mindless chance happenstance is not. The latter brings in far more assumptions. It assumes that non-conscious inorganic matter can give rise to conscious organic beings. It assumes that these things can happen without a mind behind them. It assumes that meaninglessness can give rise to meaning, and perhaps millions of other assumptions. 

[c] You a begging the facts are what they are because of chance happenstance, and how do you know they are the facts of the universe? You work on your starting presupposition - no God. Thus, you eliminate God as the reason that things are what they are. As a limited being, you only grasp aspects of the truth with a lot of falsehoods built-in for things. You are not a necessary being in determining what happened, yet you act as if you are, pontificating God's non-existence.  

[d] Join the crowd. You have no direct evidence either. And I would argue that the Bible is the direct evidence for His existence as well as the creation itself and the impossibility of it creating itself (self-creation). Someone is speaking to you from its pages, and that Someone says He is God.

You were not there to witness the origin of the universe or life. You start with a naturalistic explanation and then look for reasons to justify that assumption, ignoring the anomalies that contradict it. You believe that the present is the key to the past because all you have is the near-present (human history) to interpret that data by. I believe there would be countless assumptions built into those assumptions, more than we are capable of comprehending. 


4. Experientially and observationally, every cause has an explanation, yet when you get to the Big Bang, you don't know? You trace the cause and effect back to a point in time, a singularity, then no further. With God, that is not the case. We can go beyond the universe.  
"You" is wrong, Nobody knows,
How do you know I'm wrong if, as you say, 'nobody knows?' You are illogical again. Your worldview does not have what is necessary for the knowledge of origins. 

[a] we don't yet have the technology nor the understanding to measure what came before it, if we were to apply the, "Cause and effect only go as far back as time" then it is entirely [b] possible that the universe literally did pop into existence from nothing, [c] this is not using my reasoning, but yours. Not to mention, [d] there has still been no demonstration of a god. 

[a] You don't have what is necessary, yet you believe you one day will. The Christian worldview already has what is necessary, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal Being. 

[b] Again, something from nothing is illogical, impossible. That is just fanciful thinking.  

[c] It is not my reason that nothing existed and created something. That is a fool's thoughts that lack wisdom and logic. 

[d] There is reasonable evidence, some of which we discuss in the thread - morality and what that means from an atheist and Christian perspective. The atheist cannot account for morality. All they can account for is preference.

Perhaps my favourite evidence for the existence of God is the prophetic argument. I have not found an atheist on this forum (or any other) that understands the evidence's complexity and proofs. They always read things into Scripture that are not stated, as SkepticalOne did in both our debates on prophecy. I give him credit, at least he attempted to argue his case, and the jury did not understand the complexity of evidence either.   
#956
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I am saying that without a reasoning being who created the universe, the universe is without reason for its existence.
Oh boy.

Is that what you're hung up on?

The teleological fallacy?
#957
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
The Christian worldview already has what is necessary, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal Being [OOOIEB]. 
Your OOOIEB is logically incompatible with human agency.
#958
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Perhaps my favourite evidence for the existence of God is the prophetic argument. I have not found an atheist on this forum (or any other) that understands the evidence's complexity and proofs.
A book's predictive power is no measure of its infallibility.

A meteorologist can still lie to you.
#959
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Your worldview does not have what is necessary for the knowledge of origins. 
And neither does yours.

You've simply built a framework that re-labels the words "I don't know" (replacing them with "YHWH").
#960
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I'd like to just note here that I am a HUGE FAN of your work.

I really am.

I'm extremely impressed with your tenacity and clear thinking.

But I'm going to ask you for a big favor.

Try to imagine something.

Just for like, two minutes.

Try to imagine you are born into a remote village.

You don't know what time-period you're in and you don't know what part of the planet you're living on because you're a baby.

Now try to imagine growing up, getting older.

You learn to herd your family's goats and gather grains and carry water.

You fall in love.

You have a child.

You've never seen a book.

Is your life meaningful?