atheism and relativism.

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 322
Topic's author
#121
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.   

But you continue to find it when you discuss origins. It is woven into the fabric of the universe. We discover there is a way in which things work and a causal pattern to their existence.

Plus you continue to use it. 

Damn English is so ambiguous!   I mean that there may be no reason in the sense of 'reason = purpose or goal'.   I think that reasons in the sense of 'prior causes' are real enough, but may be not so the 'teleological' sort of 'reason'.   You my have meant somehing else entirely - that happens!


#122
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
That is an argument from ignorance. If I do not know where the universe came from that does not automatically make you right you still need to demonstrate your claim. I don't need to know where the universe came from in order to reject your claim for lack of evidence.


#123
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. 

It was C.S. Lewis' opinion, but I agree with it. 

The opinion I was referring to is that man is made in the image of god. 

The biblical God described exhibits many of the same traits that human beings do but animals lack, but to a greater degree. We can conceptualize, unlike any animal can. We can communicate like no animal, expressing complex ideas. We can use logic to solve problems that animals cannot. We experience life differently from animals. We can know abstract things to a greater degree, unlike animals. We can know and speculate on the good and evil of what is done.


In most any culture or sub-culture there is a sense of fairness. The question is why should it be there based on evolution?
There is not "should", only what is, and this is easily explained by natural selection. Fairness contributes to the individual (and the population) being more fit for a broader range of environments and more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on successful traits including fairness (or a proto-fairness).
Exactly, so you don't get an ought from an is. 

Fairness in whose mind? The Nazi mind? Kim Jong-un's mind? Your mind? Why is surviving, passing on traits, reproducing 'good' in a universe oblivious to goodness?


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. 
I don't consider this a valid point. We're not talking about extremes, but your average persons. Even still, I think you can find such people have a concern for other persons, but that that concern is stunted or the in-group is very limited.
Extremes? They're not extremes to large portions of the world's population. They are the norms. 

People have a concern to an extent, yes. My belief regarding this is because they are made in the image and likeness of God so they can't escape this, only harden their hearts to it which leads to great evil. 

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? 
Extreme examples addressed above. Since you've not addressed it, how do you explain morality in non-human (not created in the image of God) animals? 
Are animals moral or just instinctively protective of their own? 




#124
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

Ok. So what? Morality is not law. It is a description, not a prescription.
Without justice, what is good about it?

Some individuals may be able to commit immoral acts without justice, but in the broad picture this is insignificant. Moral actions have a net positive
affect on humanity, and immoral actions a net-negative. Also, there is justice but it, much like its purveyors, is not perfect.

It is not insignificant to those who have been wronged. Someone like Hitler, in your scenario, will not be brought to justice in the same proportion that he inflicted injustice. So there is a big negative there on the scale of justice. For all the moral wrongs dictators do to their citizens, do you think the justice, if any, is proportionate to the injustice? We continually watch unjust malicious dictators doing whatever they please.

If justice is not perfect is it just? If I charge you with one crime yet miss twelve others are you being justly dealt with?

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. 
Disagree. Can you show me on a thermometer where I can find "Hot"? Hot is a subjective qualitative label, nonetheless, it's generally agreed upon.
You are confusing personal preference and subjective opinion with moral right and wrong.

It is not wrong for someone to like their bath water five degrees hotter than yours. There is no crime in that. There is something wrong if they scald you with boiling water or force you to endure an extremely hot bath temperature you are uncomfortable with just because they like you to experience exactly what they experience when you are more sensitive to water at that temperature. 

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. 

I think that view is misguided and demonstrably false in the age of science. Scientific methodologies allow for there to be no "best knowledge" while unquestionably move away from ignorance 
I don't think the question is whether there is a best but whether we can achieve or recognize the best.

Best in relation to knowledge would be a complete and accurate understanding of the thing known. 

If you have no fixed ideal the question becomes how can you say it is better?

Evil in relation or comparison to what?

Good in relation or comparison to what?

Better in relation or comparison to what? 

Best is the ideal in which there is no greater comparison. 


#125
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
With blind indifference chance happenstance, there is no reason or logic. 
There is always the possibilty that there is no reason or logic.   

But you continue to find it when you discuss origins. It is woven into the fabric of the universe. We discover there is a way in which things work and a causal pattern to their existence.

Plus you continue to use it. 

Damn English is so ambiguous!   I mean that there may be no reason in the sense of 'reason = purpose or goal'.   I think that reasons in the sense of 'prior causes' are real enough, but may be not so the 'teleological' sort of 'reason'.   You my have meant somehing else entirely - that happens!

Reasons only come from reasoning beings. Yet we find reasons in the origins of the universe. A chance happenstance universe lacks this, yet somehow, down the corridor of time, this is acquired in this universe. How? As we unfold the process of origins we continually find reason in this process. We discover laws and can give a formulation to describe these laws or what happens.

It makes no sense from a blind unreasoning universe. Why would we be able to do this? From a blind, indifferent universe there is no reason this should be so.

There can be no goal because there is no goal setter, no agency, no intent.

So if we continually find reasons for things it makes no sense to think there is no reasoning being behind it. Some call this The Anthropic Principle, for there is so much "design" and complexity in the details of both the macroscopic (the universe) and the microscopic (i.e., the cell or DNA). Some have said there is a code in the DNA, for it conveys information. Small principles or constants altered in the slightest way would mean we would not exist. 

This, from your worldview stance, would be chance happenstance. What I see is the Grand Designer. What you see as a fluke of nature, a cosmic accident. 

The thing that always amazes me is why would you continue to look for meaning from the meaningless, and find it in the form of reasons.  

#126
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
That is an argument from ignorance. If I do not know where the universe came from that does not automatically make you right you still need to demonstrate your claim. I don't need to know where the universe came from in order to reject your claim for lack of evidence.

Since you didn't provide the context I will take your word for it as being ignorant. 

I continue to say what you continue to confirm - you do not know (who is ignorance). You can't. Why would you expect to, in an unreasoning, dumb, mindless, non-rational universe? You would not be consistent with your starting presupposition (i.e. Chance happenstance instead of reasoning and intelligent Being). 

Thus, my starting position is more reasonable and logical than yours, since we are discussing philosophy, something we were not there to witness.

PS. Next time you charge me with a logical fallacy, please demonstrate exactly how I committed it. 


#127
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0

When you assert that your claim is true simply because the answer is not known that is by definition an argument from ignorance. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the more common logical fallacies before debating. Until we can clear up this issue we may not be able to have a rational discussion. Again the burden of proof is on the claimant even if his opponent does not have an alternative claim to offer.
#128
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I'm the most moral being on this site. 
I've joined 4 religious groups. And follow three books. 
Apart from putting gods before others,  i am mega moral. 
Andddddddddd
If you Denounced your religion today. Would you wake up tomorrow with no morals

#129
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin

When you assert that your claim is true simply because the answer is not known that is by definition an argument from ignorance. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the more common logical fallacies before debating. Until we can clear up this issue we may not be able to have a rational discussion. Again the burden of proof is on the claimant even if his opponent does not have an alternative claim to offer.
It is easier to identify in others. (^8

I have read through them many times. My favorite:


Please show me where I did what you claim. From a logical and philosophic viewpoint, I assert it true on the impossibility of the contrary - that you can't make sense of other worldviews if you take them down to their nuts and bolts. I ask you to do just that. I have raised the question of what is necessary for truth. I have offered my worldview explanation as to why I make sense of it. I have challenged other to refute the prophecy aspect that has many factual statements and verifiable historical confirmations. I thought I was giving good reasons.

I don't claim my argument is true because the argument is not known. I claim there are reason and logic to know.  

If the burden is on the claimant then you have some burden here too. 

#130
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
You have made the claim that something exists which did not begin to exist. Can you demonstrate this or is it a bald assertion?
#131
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
You have also claimed that nothing can begin to exist without a cause can you demonstrate this or is it impossible to prove a negative?
#132
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
You have gone beyond claiming that the universe had a cause and on to claiming it was a specific cause. Can you demonstrate this specific cause or is this a false dichotomy?
#133
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
You are confusing personal preference and subjective opinion with moral right and wrong.

They are identical.

#134
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0

The opinion I was referring to is that man is made in the image of god. 

The biblical God described exhibits many of the same traits that human beings do but animals lack, but to a greater degree. We can conceptualize, unlike any animal can. We can communicate like no animal, expressing complex ideas. We can use logic to solve problems that animals cannot. We experience life differently from animals. We can know abstract things to a greater degree, unlike animals. We can know and speculate on the good and evil of what is done.

This answer is out of context and does not address the double standard you've been charged with. If you think morality to be objectively based, then your opinion ('man was made in the image of god') has no place as a foundation of morality. 


There is not "should", only what is, and this is easily explained by natural selection. Fairness contributes to the individual (and the population) being more fit for a broader range of environments and more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on successful traits including fairness (or a proto-fairness).
Exactly, so you don't get an ought from an is. 
You do get an is from an is though!  It's not a matter of mankind ought to be concerned for itself, rather mankind is concerned for itself.

Fairness in whose mind? The Nazi mind? Kim Jong-un's mind? Your mind? Why is surviving, passing on traits, reproducing 'good' in a universe oblivious to goodness?
This is not a fair representation of what I've been advocating.  We are either going to have an honest conversation, Peter, or we are not going to have one.

I don't consider this a valid point. We're not talking about extremes, but your average persons. Even still, I think you can find such people have a concern for other persons, but that that concern is stunted or the in-group is very limited.
Extremes? They're not extremes to large portions of the world's population. They are the norms. 
You're switching from individuals to populations.  The individuals you referenced ARE extremes as they are not typical.

People have a concern to an extent, yes. My belief regarding this is because they are made in the image and likeness of God so they can't escape this [...]
We agree people have a concern - that's a start.  It may be the first time we've agreed on anything!

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? 
Extreme examples addressed above. Since you've not addressed it, how do you explain morality in non-human (not created in the image of God) animals? 
Are animals moral or just instinctively protective of their own? 

There are instances of animals looking out for other species.  For instance, dolphins have been known to defend other species (including humans) from shark attacks.  So, it is certainly something more than instinctively protecting their own.


Some individuals may be able to commit immoral acts without justice, but in the broad picture this is insignificant. Moral actions have a net positive
affect on humanity, and immoral actions a net-negative. Also, there is justice but it, much like its purveyors, is not perfect.

It is not insignificant to those who have been wronged. Someone like Hitler, in your scenario, will not be brought to justice in the same proportion that he inflicted injustice.
Again, this is a double standard.  Per Christian beliefs, if Hitler accepted Jesus as his lord and saviour, there would be no justice as Hitler goes to heaven. Perfect justice is not expected in either view.

Again, hot and cold are not moral issues. They deal with quantitative values, not qualitative. There is a fixed measure. 
Disagree. Can you show me on a thermometer where I can find "Hot"? Hot is a subjective qualitative label, nonetheless, it's generally agreed upon.
You are confusing personal preference and subjective opinion with moral right and wrong.

There's no confusion. The point of the analogy was to show that within the context of a subjective principle (human life has value), objective observations can be made (murder is wrong). 


I think that view is misguided and demonstrably false in the age of science. Scientific methodologies allow for there to be no "best knowledge" while unquestionably move away from ignorance 
I don't think the question is whether there is a best but whether we can achieve or recognize the best.

Best in relation to knowledge would be a complete and accurate understanding of the thing known. 

It's safe to say, we don't have a complete and accurate understanding of the universe much less a complete and accurate understanding of what that means.  Yet, our understanding of the universe increases nonetheless. "Best" is unnecessary and hyperbolic in the context of acquiring knowledge, be it moral or otherwise.

#135
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
You have made the claim that something exists which did not begin to exist. Can you demonstrate this or is it a bald assertion?
I have used a philosophical case for it being logical. Accepting the biblical God as the one and only true God is reasonable to believe. I've heard and read the universe is seen and believed as having a beginning by many mainstream scientists today. It coincides with the biblical account as having a beginning by God. I have made the case for what is necessary to make sense of beginnings/origins. 

I can demonstrate the reasonableness of the statement in other ways. It would take time to develop, but no one wants to engage in the argument. I would use prophecy to establish the reasonableness and logic of believing the Bible as credible. I laid out my case briefly in the thread, For Stephen - Prophecy is Reasonable and Logical to Believe. (see Post 182 and 191)

There are many logical arguments that give credence and evidence to the existence of this God. You guys exclusively and exhaustively want empirical evidence (that is why I set up the prophecy thread for it supports the God of history). And the biblical account gives statements to the effect that He is before all [created] things, and in Him all things hold together (Colossians 1:16; Colossians 1:17). It gives a reason for why the universe is sustainable, why things are constant, whereas you would not think this possible with blind indifferent chance happenstance. It is not logical. It is not reasonable, but reasons are used in stating the case. 

#136
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
You have also claimed that nothing can begin to exist without a cause can you demonstrate this or is it impossible to prove a negative?
Let me clarify that. Nothing that begins to exist can exist without a cause. Do you know of anything that has a beginning that does not have a cause? So it is logically consistent with what we see. We know that nothing that begins to exist can create itself. That is a self-refuting principle.

The biblical God is self-existent, per that revelation. He does not rely on anyone for His existence since He is before all things [created].

#137
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin

You have gone beyond claiming that the universe had a cause and on to claiming it was a specific cause. Can you demonstrate this specific cause or is this a false dichotomy?
What would you accept? 

I have claimed the biblical God makes sense of that cause. How does a worldview that excludes a personal Creator make sense of the universes beginning?

First off, there is nothing logical in it for the universe beginning with blind chaotic chance happenstance. Do you want to use a Multiverse theory? Is that an infinite regression or did the Multiverse have a beginning? This is all highly speculative. Or how about the Steady State Theory and the infinite universe? How do you ever get to the present? These are seriously flawed. 

You always point the finger at my position. What about yours? Examine your own position. Answer some of my questions. This is the ploy of many atheists - avoidance.

#138
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Unless prophecy is too specific to be interpreted and has a narrow time frame it may as well be astrogy. The prophecy in the bible either is both fortold and fulfilled in the same book or is interoperable and of an open ended time frame. 
#139
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you know of anything that has a beginning that does not have a cause? 
This is a classic black swan fallacy.you can only claim there are no black swans until someone observes a black swan.
#140
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I have not  claimed that the universe came about by chance or happenstance or even said that I believe in those things. That the universe must be either created or have come about by chance is a black and white fallacy.

#141
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I don't have the answers to any of these  questions but that doesn't mean that magic is the answer.
#142
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
This is the ploy of many atheists - avoidance
Saying that I don't know and refraining from making any claim in the absence of sufficient evidence is not avoidance it is honesty. 

Topic's author
#143
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Suppose someone dies of a heart attack in a New York hotel room.  The Haitian housekeeper says its because some enemy used voodoo.   Is she right?  More to the point, how could you prove to her that it wasn't voodoo?

People who claim 'goddidit' are in the same position as the housekeeper - they are making a claim that can't be refuted, only dismissed.

In 2018 cosmologists are still working hard on discovering the real mechanisms behind the origins of the universe. It's seems to be some job, ust as doing an autopsy on a heart-attack victim is harder than saying 'it was voodoo'.

So to PGA I say that his belief is no more than rank superstition and shows a lack of intellectual curiosity.   'Goddidit' is not - strictly speaking - illogical.  It is boringly obvious that an if an entity capabale of creating universes and enabling prophesy existed it would explain everything.

'Goddidit' is an answer - but you have to believe it to believe it, just as only another Haitian would believe the housekeeper!

#144
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin

I don't have the answers to any of these  questions but that doesn't mean that magic is the answer.
Now it is you who are baldly asserting and poisoning the well. Just because you don't agree or don't understand something does not necessarily mean it is magic, and that is not the claim of any of the Bible which forbids all kinds of magic. 

#145
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
This is the ploy of many atheists - avoidance
Saying that I don't know and refraining from making any claim in the absence of sufficient evidence is not avoidance it is honesty. 
Then it is up to you to show I am also ill-informed and ignorant and that my evidence or claim thereof is insufficient. It is you who is admitting ignorance, not me. I have offered to show reasonable and logical evidence which is all I can do to convince you or anyone else. A person who doesn't want convincing will find every kind of excuse to avoid committing to the evidence. 

If you think my claims are non-factual or poorly reasoned on the prophecy thread (see Post 182 or 191) then dispute them. How much do you know of the Preterist argument? If you don't know much about it how can you say it is insufficient? With the moral argument or the argument from design or cause or Creator show me the evidence is unreasonable. 
#146
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Magic, god(s), ghosts, the flying spaghetti monster and pandimensional beings all have about the same level of evidence and saying god did it you may as well say magic. You may substitute god(s) for magic in my previous post if it helps you understand my meaning better.

Failure to admit your ignorance does not make it go away. If you have evidence other than anecdotal please present it but allow me to be perfectly clear the bible is not evidence it is the claim. Without some sufficient evidence (objective physical evidence would be nice and anecdotal testimony is not sufficient) I reject the claim the bible represents. Logic without evidence or logic based on incorrect can lead to incorrect conclusions so logic while a necessary component is useless without evidence. Don't bother talking about you biblical horoscopes either those are profoundly unimpressive.
#147
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Then it is up to you to show I am also ill-informed and ignorant

Actually this is not how it works. That we are all ignorant and ill-informed is the default position until proven otherwise. Claims of special knowledge will be dismissed.
Topic's author
#148
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
How much do you know of the Preterist argument? If you don't know much about it how can you say it is insufficient?

As I understand it, preterism is concered with the prophetic elements of scripture.  Preterists argue amongst themselves concering whether a prophesy has alreay been fullfilled or is yet to be fulfilled - they do not concern themselves so much with the validity of prophesy; the truth and reality of prophesy is taken as a given.

Prophesy flies in the face of scientific understanding of the world.   As I see it, that means we have a stark choice; we can posit the existence of the 'supernatural' not restricted by such things as cause and effect and finite properties or we can reject the reality of prophesy. 


#149
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser

Suppose someone dies of a heart attack in a New York hotel room.  The Haitian housekeeper says its because some enemy used voodoo.   Is she right?  More to the point, how could you prove to her that it wasn't voodoo?

People who claim 'goddidit' are in the same position as the housekeeper - they are making a claim that can't be refuted, only dismissed.

The biblical God is backed by historical evidence and many logical and reasonable arguments. Christianity is not illogical. It is not a blind faith. With any worldview position, the evidence will be funneled through that set of paradigms. The consequences of ideas saw a radical shift with the Age of Reason/Enlightenment and Darwinism. Humanity jettisoned God and replaced Him with themselves as the measure of/for truth.


In 2018 cosmologists are still working hard on discovering the real mechanisms behind the origins of the universe.
It's seems to be some job, just as doing an autopsy on a heart-attack victim is harder than saying 'it was voodoo'.

And I'm sure there will still be conflicting positions for not all the evidence will line up with any given theory. 


So to PGA I say that his belief is no more than rank superstition and shows a lack of intellectual curiosity.   'Goddidit' is not - strictly speaking - illogical.  It is boringly obvious that an if an entity capabale of creating universes and enabling prophesy existed it would explain everything.

I think Christians could use the same argument on the atheist regarding intellectual curiosity, but I don't believe the atheist can explain all things with a subjective mindset.



'Goddidit' is an answer - but you have to believe it to believe it, just as only another Haitian would believe the housekeeper!

Atheism has an answer too that you have to believe to accept the position.

Hey, I'm in the same boat you are regarding voodoo.  
#150
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Magic, god(s), ghosts, the flying spaghetti monster and pandimensional beings all have about the same level of evidence and saying god did it you may as well say magic. You may substitute god(s) for magic in my previous post if it helps you understand my meaning better.

I don't believe in magic, gods, flying spaghetti monsters either. Nor do I substitute something so ridiculous as magic for God. 



Failure to admit your ignorance does not make it go away. If you have evidence other than anecdotal please present it but allow me to be perfectly clear the bible is not evidence it is the claim. Without some sufficient evidence (objective physical evidence would be nice and anecdotal testimony is not sufficient) I reject the claim the bible represents. Logic without evidence or logic based on incorrect can lead to incorrect conclusions so logic while a necessary component is useless without evidence. Don't bother talking about you biblical horoscopes either those are profoundly unimpressive.
Again, you use an ad hominem which signifies to me that you can't put up a decent argument against my position. I am not the one who claims to be ignorant of this God. Go to For Stephen - Prophecy is Reasonable and Logical to Believe and dispute the factual claims I have laid down in Posts 182 and 191 and let us see who has the more reasonable position. You keep claiming insufficient evidence/objective physical evidence being preferred. Then you say you reject the claim the Bible represents. This signifies you are not open or willing to engage in the evidence. I see excuse after excuse without even hearing the evidence or refuting it. How reasonable is this? I don't talk about Bible horoscopes. I don't even know what you are talking about. What I see the atheist doing constantly in these threads is shutting down the Christian because they are not interested in engaging. 

The Bible is evidence. It contains historical information of the times which can be verified or matched with other accounts from the same period in history. 

Almost every strand of that post shows me you are stone cold closed to hearing anything I have to say. Your mind is already made up and you will not discuss anything that conflicts with your perceived views.