atheism and relativism.

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 322
#61
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
What makes scripture any more than the subjective opinions of the men who wrote them? Which scripture (for many religions have a holy book) is the most moral? If you can answer the second question what makes that answer more than your subjective opinion?
#62
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
"Which scripture is the most moral"

Got a kick out that being in this thread lol
#63
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Plisken
You are welcome.
#64
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Plisken
Do you have an answer to the question since it tickles you so? If you do what makes that answer more than your subjective opinion?
Topic's author
#65
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
What makes scripture any more than the subjective opinions of the men who wrote them? Which scripture (for many religions have a holy book) is the most moral? If you can answer the second question what makes that answer more than your subjective opinion?
I'm second guessing PGA a bit here because its his idea -  I hope you don't think I go along with it!

The reason PGA would give is probably that its because scriptures are divinely inspired.   Of course that's nonsense if you don't believe in gods in the first place, but it must seem perfectly reasonable if you believe god is real, which PGA clearly does.

I am also sure he would choose the Bible as the most moral scripture because it is the one 'inspired' by the god he believes in.



#66
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
[...]if there are no absolute objective moral truths then everything becomes manipulation, charisma, and force to get others to think as you (generic for whoever the leader is) do. 

There may be no objective basis for morality - so what! Moral actions can be objectively known once we agree human life (and life is general) is special and worth preserving. Anyone who does not agree to this has no place in a legitimate discussion on morality.

What's more, I think our evolutionary heritage has built into us our appreciation of life. If so, morality has an objective basis.

I think you get too caught up on your subjective desire for an absolute, objective being to realize one is not needed for morality and that there is possibly a much more plausible objective basis if you must have such a foundation.




#67
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin

What about a religious world view makes morality more than a subjective opinion?


It as being the truth, then we have an objective source that has revealed Himself to humanity via moral commands. Then we can know and have certainty. I encourage you to make sense of morality if everything is relative and subjective. It begs the question of why your view/opinion is any better than my opposing view.

Working on the presupposition that God is true Christians can make sense of origins, existence, truth, knowledge, morality. Other worldviews are inconsistent. So, God is necessary. 

Prophecy is another way God has given us that verifies His word as truth through history in the sense that it is most reasonable and logical to believe from that standpoint with the information we have available. There are many other arguments. When people poke a hole in one bucket there is yet another one under it to catch the water, and when they poke a hole in it, there is the next bucket and another one under it, and so on, because the universe points to THIS Creator. 

Even though it points to the Creator the creature does not want to admit this due to his/her perceived autonomy. The unbeliever wants to live his/her life on their own terms. They do not want to be accountable and they make up their own morality which results in human evils.

Having said all that, the unbeliever will start to make holes in this bucket of morality because he does not want it to hold water for the believer. 

Topic's author
#68
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
The unbeliever wants to live his/her life on their own terms. They do not want to be accountable and they make up their own morality which results in
I despair about what can be done about the theistic myth that atheits just want to commit crimes!   PG - everyone is tempted all the time and almost always we resist it.   The theistic myth is that we resist temptation because of God, or faith etc.  But the real reason is that we are born wired-up to behave appropriately for a social animal.

What blocks us from behaving totally selfishly is a circuit in the brain that tells us 'That is wrong'.   That circuit was put there by evolution because we are a social species and some method of ensuring eusocial behaviour is necessary for our long-term survival.   So when we see an old lady our cognitive logical brain might think 'I could steal her handbag and gain use of the money in it', but in 99.99% of cases such thoughts don't get to over-ride the strong signal that 'stealing is wrong'.

That is what is happening inside a human brain when we are tempted - our cognitive, logical side sees things one way but the autonomic behaviour-control circuit conflicts with it.   Primitive man - and modern theist - imagines this as a battle between the forces of good and evil, but its not.  It is the result of our brains being wired up for eusociality but also to be alive to opportunties, even though most of those opportunities are summarily dismissed.

Or it's god and the devil fighting over possession of your soul. It's definitely one or the other.

#69
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Well the cosmological argument either falls victim to the problem of infinite regression or comits the special pleading fallacy but putting that aside for a moment what makes any god(s) moral judgements/pronouncements more than some god(s) subjective personal opinion?

#70
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

[...]if there are no absolute objective moral truths then everything becomes manipulation, charisma, and force to get others to think as you (generic for whoever the leader is) do. 

There may be no objective basis for morality - so what! Moral actions can be objectively known once we agree human life (and life is general) is special and worth preserving. Anyone who does not agree to this has no place in a legitimate discussion on morality.

Then you can't have moral good. All you can have is like and dislike. As G.K. Chesterton said, (and I paraphrase) "Some people like to love their neighbors and others like to eat them. What is your preference?"

Once we agree? The problem is agreeing. If your neighbor or your enemy does not think your moral view is objective because it conflicts with his/her preference, and they think their view is the objective one, then who is right? Can you prove your view is necessarily objectively so because many hold opposing views, or is it the case that it is your subjective opinion that claims it objective? It begs the question of what would be necessary for a subjective being to know and prove their case is what is and should be.

C.S. Lewis did provide a list, loosely based on The Ten Commandments that he identified as operational in almost all societies that appear universal (applying to every culture) in its nature. I have an answer why. We are made in the image and likeness of God. Deep down we know somethings are true morally that speaks to the conscious if it has not been seared by sin, yet we suppress this truth to live as we prefer.

But once you deny the absolute, ultimate, omniscient, objective, universal, unchanging/eternal source of morality it becomes a personal preference. 
The reason why is that it has no best to compare goodness to that is not contrived by a subjective being. You arbitrarily make up 'best' because you like it, not because it is. 

What's more, I think our evolutionary heritage has built into us our appreciation of life. If so, morality has an objective basis.
Very reasonable of you!

Now it is my turn to play devil's advocate by playing to the consequences of your worldview. 

How can it (evolution) build it (morality) in when there is no intent to do so? Things just happen. You give personal attributes to describe a process that has no intent to itself. You think that your survival builds it in because you want to live but if we are just chemical and biological matter that is "governed" by chance happenstance and the environment why SHOULD one body of matter act as another body of matter? No reason ultimately. It just does. There is no should to it. The next chemical and biological bag of matter may nullify their life because it is ultimately meaningless. There is no ultimate reason life should be. It is an accident. If the universe is all there is and there is no inherent meaning put in it am I not deluding myself in creating meaning when my life does not ultimately matter? It does not matter whether I live or die because everything ultimately is meaningless and I am going to die. Why prolong the inevitable, especially since I'm having a rough time surviving. Some people take this kind of thinking to the next level of pointlessness and strap a bomb to their bodies or go into a large crowd of people with an AK47 to make this point. 


I think you get too caught up on your subjective desire for an absolute, objective being to realize one is not needed for morality and that there is possibly a much more plausible objective basis if you must have such a foundation.
For one thing, there is no ultimate justice. Some people get away with things that oppose your contrived standard.

It begs the question of why your subjective thought should be that objective source or foundation everyone else should live by? What happens if they don't want to live by it, or don't want to live, or don't want anyone else to live because they want to hurt others like they have been hurt? They see no ultimate meaning to life.

Without God why is your opinion the best so that we should not end our life? Because you like your life while in the next street someone is experiencing hardships that make them question justice and goodness and the point of life since they are just chemical and biological accidents that experience misery. They feel their existence is ultimately pointless and they want others to know it also. 

Or what about the dictator who seizes power and wants you to conform to his preferences? What is wrong with that in an accidental universe? Why can't he impose his preferences on those he controls? Ultimately there is no reason. He enjoys a lavish life while many of his subjects starve or live a pitiful existence. What does he care about your sense of morality? Life to him is what he can get and get away with. The more he can enact his preferences the more he likes it. The world is replete with such characters. They're hedonists. A huge portion of the world is in the hands of such characters. They manipulate morals to fulfill their desires. They deny any ultimate moral being. They believe if such a being does not exist then there are no ultimate consequences for what they do, as long as they remain in power. So power becomes the means to their end - retain it at all costs.



#71
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
The unbeliever wants to live his/her life on their own terms. They do not want to be accountable and they make up their own morality which results in 
I despair about what can be done about the theistic myth that atheits just want to commit crimes!   PG - everyone is tempted all the time and almost always we resist it.   The theistic myth is that we resist temptation because of God, or faith etc.  But the real reason is that we are born wired-up to behave appropriately for a social animal.
Calling it a myth does not necessarily make it so. 

Judging on the 20th-century data, atheistic and secular regimes and governments have been responsible for more mass deaths than in any other previous century. 

Morally wired by chance with the desire to survive? What makes our survival good? 



What blocks us from behaving totally selfishly is a circuit in the brain that tells us 'That is wrong'.   That circuit was put there by evolution because we are a social species and some method of ensuring eusocial behaviour is necessary for our long-term survival.   So when we see an old lady our cognitive logical brain might think 'I could steal her handbag and gain use of the money in it', but in 99.99% of cases such thoughts don't get to over-ride the strong signal that 'stealing is wrong'.

Again, you use evolution as your god in that you attribute to it god-like qualities. It is personified as if it has personal qualities. People use the term, Mother Nature. Evolution just happens. There is no method to it. What survives just happens. Evolution doesn't put that circuit there. There is no intentionality there. Only mindful beings are intentional. It just happens. There is no rhyme or reason to it. There is no reason why it should happen. You think that evolution dictates that we should survive. More to the point is that because something survives it is deemed to have evolved to do so for the strong survive and the weak perish. Along comes the conscious altruistic gene that triggers, "If I scratch his back he'll scratch my itchy back. We both benefit!" The only problem is that he is not itchy and by scratching it you cause an infection. In other words, he doesn't FEEL the same way you do. 

Next, you have the problem of logical consistency. Who decides? Some people think one way. Others think another way. What is actually wrong losses its identity and "wrong" loses its logical consistency when both claim their view is correct. 

Next, you think that being social creatures is desirable for survival, yet if we both compete for the same food and that food is in short supply you being social and outnumbering me is not going to keep me alive, unless I have the machine gun.


That is what is happening inside a human brain when we are tempted - our cognitive, logical side sees things one way but the autonomic behaviour-control circuit conflicts with it.   Primitive man - and modern theist - imagines this as a battle between the forces of good and evil, but its not.  It is the result of our brains being wired up for eusociality but also to be alive to opportunties, even though most of those opportunities are summarily dismissed.


Or it's god and the devil fighting over possession of your soul. It's definitely one or the other.
The autonomic behavior-control circuit? It seems very complicated. Is that an assumption, a made up circuit, or can you go to a brain and demonstrate such a circuit?

You seem to think that logic is an empirical process. Is everything materialistic? If not, then how do we arrive at abstract non-tangible, non-physicals?

You seem to think that theists have no rationale for God, that belief in God is made up to serve a purpose and that thinking of God is illogical. The problem is that the Bible is reasonable. It makes the case that God has revealed Himself. 

As for the devil, I believe he has been judged and has lost the battle. He becomes the excuse for evil whereas it is humanity enacting their relativism. 
Topic's author
#72
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
The autonomic behavior-control circuit? It seems very complicated. Is that an assumption, a made up circuit, or can you go to a brain and demonstrate such a circuit?
Most of what you posted is bluster and I don't want to re-open the evolution debate all over again right now.  But the question above is a fair one.
I can't pretend to be an expert in neuro-anatomy, and I am certainly not familiar with all the literature on the subject, but I am aware there has been a lot of work done in this area in recent years.    Googling related terms will throw up a lot of good stuff. 

I will confess that the picture I painted of an 'autonomic behaviour control circuit' is very much a layman's simplification, but it is in no way misleading and totally consistent with modern views of brain function, as well as I understand it.  I can't link to an article on the 'ABCC' because that is my interpretation, invented on the spot to put over the general idea in a forum post that is - in the end - only for fun.

So I can't demonstrate that circuit, but I can link to an article that includes the sentences:

"Patients with vmPFC lesions are more likely to endorse killing one person to save multiple others in moral dilemmas involving high levels of conflict."   and "However, empathy is not solely the product of activation in the dACC and insula, and as such the absence of activation in these regions in moral judgment studies does not strongly argue against the involvement of empathy in moral judgment."

There can be little doubt that brain hardware plays a large part in our moral sense.
 

#73
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
C.S. Lewis did provide a list, loosely based on The Ten Commandments that he identified as operational in almost all societies that appear universal (applying to every culture) in its nature. I have an answer why. We are made in the image and likeness of God
That's your opinion - not to be confused with an objective basis for morality. What is not an opinion is that there are certain actions which are good for human well being and some that are not. The ten commandments is, at best, a partial list of actions which can be moral.

Once we agree? The problem is agreeing.
Not really. If someone doesn't think human life is special, then they likely have been or will be removed from the human population through self inflicted or societal exile/death. 

How can it (evolution) build it (morality) in when there is no intent to do so? 
Evolution doesn't build morality, but through it our nature has been shaped. Actions which contribute to well being of the individual and/or group make it more likely for an individual within a social species to reproduce. Continue this for millennium and it's not hard to see how a social species can revere beneficial acts and a proto-morality begins to form. We can observe these proto-moralities in other primates, dolphins, canines, felines, etc., and I bet you'll not argue these were made in the 'image of god'. 

For one thing, there is no ultimate justice.
Ok. So what? Morality is not law. It is a description, not a prescription.

Without God why is your opinion the best so that we should not end our life? 
It is not necessary to know what the 'hottest' bath water you can tolerate is before you can know too much heat to your bath is bad for you. In other words, no best or worst is needed to understand good and bad.

That's about all I saw worth responding to among the rhetoric. 

#74
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Well the cosmological argument either falls victim to the problem of infinite regression or comits the special pleading fallacy but putting that aside for a moment what makes any god(s) moral judgements/pronouncements more than some god(s) subjective personal opinion?


Why does it fall victim to infinite regression? I believe the universe had a beginning. With a beginning, you can only go back so far. How does the universe begin and why does it begin?

Only if the argument was for an infinite universe would the causal chain be infinite, which begs how we arrive at the present. One thing about special pleading, you are just as guilty of doing it because your argument is not logical without a necessary reasoning being capable of creating the universe. It begs the question of without such a being why these things are possible and why we find reasons. 

I'm not one for the 'gods' theory.

One definition of God is the greatest possible being. The biblical God is a personal being. One attribute of this God is as an omniscient being, that is a being who knows all things. Other attributes are that He eternally exists, His goodness, justice, and logic. So we have the ingredients for what is necessary for absolutes, objectivity (knowing all things) and universality (applies to all people of all times), eternality (exists with no beginning and no end), transcendent (exists outside the order of His creation), and immutability (His attributes do not change). Add to these qualities benevolence (chooses what is good and is good), justice (punishes evil or what is wrong), logic ( so He doesn't contradict Himself) and truthfulness (He does not lie).

There are sense and sensibility to be had from such a worldview because it has the conditions necessary for such conditions to be met when we examine our existence and the universe.

Now we approach the atheistic, secular human god of chance happenstance, random chance mutations, and evolution; basically matter, plus energy over time forming all that is. Inorganic lifeless matter somehow produces conscious being along the chain of events. What is logical about any of this?

You have none of the ingredients you find and witness with living, conscious, rational, personal, logical beings being present at/in the grand design - the Big Bang, or whatever other theory of the universe you choose to believe in. Scientists via for the hearts and minds of their subjects - other limited rational beings who are at the mercy of these other limited experts in making sense of all of this). And one scientist builds a paradigm that differs from that of another scientist. They compete for your affection in liking their idea over others. They cash in on bazaar theories that earn them millions of dollars. They become celebrities. We idolize them. They become the highest authorities on such matters, even if they are like the average Joe on other matters and just as much in the dark about morals.

Yet from such a universe, from chance happenstance, why would you expect to find what you witness and live in? Why does this universe materialize these things somehow, anyhow, anyway, and yet you say it does? And there is no intent, no purpose to it doing so, yet you find intent and purpose.

Then there is the problem of how such a universe sustains these interrelated functions that life depends on, for no reason - it just does and it just is.

These laws we discover describe how things work. We are able to identify them by forming equations that describe them. There are a pattern and logical order to them.

The question is, why would you EXPECT to find reasons from such a universe, yet you do in everything you examine. In a chance universe, why are there laws that function and are necessary to function in a particular way for us to exist? There is no reason in such a universe, but they do.   

Preference describe things we like or dislike, thus they are subjective to the individual and describe what he likes. They tell us the way things are for him, not what they ought to be.

Moral laws prescribe what is right or wrong and they should apply to everyone equally. It is not a choice that you make right because you like it.

How do we get a moral law from a subjective preference, a descriptive?

In a universe devoid of God we would derive moral laws from behaviors and what is - the descriptive. The universe is what is. It makes n sense of what ought to be, neither do preferential choices.
#75
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Either nothing can exist without a cause in which case what caused your god(s) or at least one thing can exist without a cause in which case why could that one thing not be the universe itself?

Infinite regression or special pleading take your pick but the cosmological argument is built on one or the other. Further it cannot by itself lead to any particular god concept without committing a black and white fallacy.

I have not made a claim we are still addressing yours and we have yet to get to the actual question which I thought was the central point of our discussion. What makes the morality you follow anything other than a subjective opinion?

#76
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Everything that begins to exist has a cause, not everything has a cause.
The Ultimate Reality doesn't begin to exist, it always is.


Even God denying physicists understand the universe had a start.

Your understanding of the KCA is a straw man.






#77
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Everything that comes into being does so because of God.

The only way to get around this is to make God something other than THE ULTIMATE REALITY or THE SUPREME BEING.


Straw men all around
#78
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Prove it. Prove that the ultimate reality is not simple physical reality prove that nothing can begin to exist without a cause prove that a cause cannot be preceded by an effect prove that anything is eternal prove that the universe as a whole is not eternal. Prove all of it or give it all up. I don't know where the universe came from or what if anything is outside the universe. Unless you can demonstrate your claims I will have no reason to think that you know either. I am not asking you to demonstrate reality as I presume that some reality does (though 100% certainty may be beyond me) I am asking you to demonstrate that reality conforms to your claims about it. I don't even care if you call it god or reality or Susan Swan and the tin plated dancers I only care about your specific claims about its nature.

Topic's author
#79
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
Would you care to comment on my earlier post? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/572/post_links/25427



#80
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
If God had a beginning, time would be a reality over God, and then God would not be The Ultimate Reality.

Time must come after God, not the other way around.
#81
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

Just as, according to scripture, God is written in the hearts of all, so can moral things be discerned even from those who do not have the law to guide them.


Maybe there is such a thing as objective morality. Without God, there certainly couldn't be, because without God there is no such thing as truth.




#82
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Which MAN wrote that tripe?
#83
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
What makes scripture any more than the subjective opinions of the men who wrote them? Which scripture (for many religions have a holy book) is the most moral? If you can answer the second question what makes that answer more than your subjective opinion?
I'm second guessing PGA a bit here because its his idea -  I hope you don't think I go along with it!

The reason PGA would give is probably that its because scriptures are divinely inspired.   Of course that's nonsense if you don't believe in gods in the first place, but it must seem perfectly reasonable if you believe god is real, which PGA clearly does.

I am also sure he would choose the Bible as the most moral scripture because it is the one 'inspired' by the god he believes in.
You are jumping to the conclusion it is not true if you don't believe in God in the first place, so it is not inspired and it is not objective just because you don't believe in it.

The Bible has lots of verifiers, and I harp on prophecy because it is historically reasonable and logical to believe these predictions happened before the fact. That alone is a test of its veracity. But the biblical God makes sense in other ways, such as by asking what is necessary for objective morality. I laid out the argument in another post. These and a thousand other arguments give credence to the biblical God. It is not a blind faith. It is not an unreasonable faith. The biblical faith is most reasonable, and logical.  

#84
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
C.S. Lewis did provide a list, loosely based on The Ten Commandments that he identified as operational in almost all societies that appear universal (applying to every culture) in its nature. I have an answer why. We are made in the image and likeness of God
That's your opinion - not to be confused with an objective basis for morality. What is not an opinion is that there are certain actions which are good for human well being and some that are not. The ten commandments is, at best, a partial list of actions which can be moral.
It was C.S. Lewis' opinion, but I agree with it. He was an atheist who reluctantly became a Christian and from what I hear this was an issue he struggled with - that is evil and God and making sense of morals without Him.


In most any culture or sub-culture there is a sense of fairness. The question is why should it be there based on evolution?



Once we agree? The problem is agreeing.
Not really. If someone doesn't think human life is special, then they likely have been or will be removed from the human population through self inflicted or societal exile/death. 
Take a look at all the dictators and oligarchies around the world that do just fine by exploiting and devaluing human life. 


How can it (evolution) build it (morality) in when there is no intent to do so? 
Evolution doesn't build morality, but through it our nature has been shaped. Actions which contribute to well being of the individual and/or group make it more likely for an individual within a social species to reproduce. Continue this for millennium and it's not hard to see how a social species can revere beneficial acts and a proto-morality begins to form. We can observe these proto-moralities in other primates, dolphins, canines, felines, etc., and I bet you'll not argue these were made in the 'image of god
Well-being in whose mind? Kim Jong-un's? 

For one thing, there is no ultimate justice.
Ok. So what? Morality is not law. It is a description, not a prescription.
Without justice, what is good about it?


Without God why is your opinion the best so that we should not end our life? 
It is not necessary to know what the 'hottest' bath water you can tolerate is before you can know too much heat to your bath is bad for you. In other words, no best or worst is needed to understand good and bad.

Again, hot and cold are not moral issues. They deal with quantitative values, not qualitative. There is a fixed measure. 

Back as far as Plato and Aristotle, both recognized the objective best was how the good was measured. The measure of morality if it is relative is not fixed. How you get to objective morality from a subjective mindset with no outside directive is beyond me.

#85
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
The Apostle Paul wrote it, and he also wrote this...


"unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil....But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good"

#86
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Either nothing can exist without a cause in which case what caused your god(s) or at least one thing can exist without a cause in which case why could that one thing not be the universe itself?

Infinite regression or special pleading take your pick but the cosmological argument is built on one or the other. Further it cannot by itself lead to any particular god concept without committing a black and white fallacy.

I have not made a claim we are still addressing yours and we have yet to get to the actual question which I thought was the central point of our discussion. What makes the morality you follow anything other than a subjective opinion?

Everything that begins to exist needs a cause.

Why God does not fit into your category is because God transcends His creation and He is self-existent.

I'm not pleading for infinite regression. How am I doing that?

The Cosmos can lead to questioning how such majesty and awesomeness can come about. There are only a few scenarios. 

A necessary being as described in the Bible would be a reason for objectivity, especially since the Bible claims God is speaking to us about His creation. We, as humans, are subjective. On the issue of origins, none of us were there. We have to presuppose one of two possible scenarios. With God, we can make sense of why. With blind indifference chance happenstance, there is no reason or logic. 

Topic's author
#87
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
A good example of the difference between us is that you wrote "it is historically reasonable and logical to believe these predictions happened before the fact."

I cannot accept prediction to be 'historically reasonable' or 'logical'.  Seeing the future is an extrordinary claim.  You would (rightly!) call me a liar if/ I claimed to see the future because preduction is neither 'reasonable' nor 'logical'.   If a prediction appears to 'come to pass' you can either suppose the laws of cause and effect are suspended or you can suppose some guy set out to deceive.

Can I prove it is fakery?   Possibly not, but we know fakery goes on and moreover it doesn't require the suspension of physics - just a man with a pen and some ink.

#88
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
God transcends His creation
Can you demonstrate this? If you cannot it invalidates the rest of your argument although even if you can prove that something exists transcendent of time and space (whatever that means) and that this thing whatever it Is caused something that lead to the causal chain that set off the big bang the rest of your argument still makes a lot of assumptions and is on shaky ground.

Topic's author
#89
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
With blind indifference chance happenstance, there is no reason or logic. 
There is always the possibilty that there is no reason or logic.  



#90
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm not pleading for infinite regression.

I agree you are not pleading infinite regression. You have chosen to go with a special pleading fallacy instead. The cosmological argument must contain one or the other. Also in order to use it as an argument for a specific god concept comits a black and white fallacy.