Evidence for God from Science

Thadeyus wrote:I, too, am happy with SkepticalSeeker's definition. Though, sadly, getting a consensus on such here seems a daunting task.

It's not my definition, it's the definition in the dictionary.

*Bows* Previous post edited for clarification SkepticalSkeeter.

Much cheers to all.

Kurieuo wrote:Anyway, I'd encourage you to look beyond the RCC and labels of one particular church denomination or the other. While such may influence one's Christianity, such do nothing to make one a Christian -- which I'm sure even Byblos as a well-reasoned and more free-thinking Catholic would agree with

You probably said that in jest so would it surprise you if I said I'd agree? One must learn how to walk before they can run a marathon. It makes no sense to talk about the RCC or any other denomination or church, or any other religion for that matter, if the question of the existence of God is still on the table. I would never in a million years try to convince an atheist that God exists by appealing to the Catholic Church.

SkepticalSkeeter wrote:

jlay wrote:This (Golden Rule) is often sited by Atheists with little to no explanation as to why it is true. Of course I would agree that the GR is true. But why is it BETTER than, 'only the strong survive?' Because you prefer it? Or, maybe because a group of people prefer it?

My response is, so what? Preference is subjective. And on that premise we are left arguing in circles, because you simply can't account for your worldview without smuggling in another worldview that you concurrently claim is false.

The Golden Rule is better than 'only the strong survive' because if people follow it it works. That's why you see the Golden Rule (aka the Ethics of Reciprocity) cited by religions and philosophers all over the world and throughout history (and well before the appearance of Christianity, by the way). It's better because following it yields positive results - happiness, safety, cooperation, stability, and peace. 'Only the strong survive' is inferior to the GR because it's socially maladaptive and following it will lead to strife, violence, and uncertainty, all of which weaken and destabilize a society. In other words, it doesn't work.

Positive results? Better? These are terms that infer an objective measure. Again, you are smuggling in the objective notion that mankinds happiness, safety, etc. matter. But you are in no way accounting for this. It works? That isn't an answer. You haven't even begun to deal with the ontological question. We also know that logic 'works,' but its working doesn't account for its being. So, unless you care to address this, we are back asking, who cares? Works for who? You? Who are you to force your preferences on me? Maybe I think total anarchy works. (I don't of course)
FWIW, I can show you that might versus right works. History can most certainly testify that it can stabilize a society. It may not be your preference, but it certainly works. Again, you answer makes all these assumptions and infer an obejctive standard by which to measure, and yet account for nothing. You presume that human kind has some intrinsic value, yet you provide no source outside of mankind itself. That of course is question begging.

Safety is BETTER than violence. peace is BETTER than strife. But all you have stated is that you PREFER these over the other. These terms (better, worse) presume an objective standard by which we can measure. You are smuggling in a worldview without accounting for your standard of measure, and all the while denying the worldview you are stealing from.

I would also give this very wise piece of advice. Do not judge a philosophy by its abuse.

jlay wrote:Positive results? Better? These are terms that infer an objective measure. Again, you are smubbling in the objective notion that mankinds happiness, safety, etc. matter. But you are in no way accounting for this. It works? That isn't an answer. You haven't even begun to deal with the ontological question. We also know that logic 'works,' but its working doesn't account for its being. So, unless you care to address this, we are back asking, who cares? Works for who? You? Who are you to force your preferences on me? Maybe I think total anarchy works. (I don't of course)
FWIW, I can show you that might versus right works. History can most certainly testify that it can stabilize a society. It may not be your preference, but it certainly works. Again, you answer makes all these assumptions and infer an obejctive standard by which to measure, and yet account for nothing. You presume that human kind has some intrinsic value, yet you provide no source outside of mankind itself. That of course is question begging.

Safety is BETTER than violence. peace is BETTER than strife. But all you have stated is that you PREFER these over the other. These terms (better, worse) presume an objective standard by which we can measure. You are smuggling in a worldview without accounting for your standard of measure, and all the while denying the worldview you are stealing from.

I would also give this very wise piece of advice. Do not judge a philosophy by its abuse.

Precisely. And this is why all atheists are thieves.

@Kurieuo

Read your sketch on the dialogue between you and me. Very funny...

Look, I am not trying to be rude or anything, but you were saying that I don't read your posts carefully and you are inviting me to post on the other thread... Are you reading my posts carefully?

Let me make it more clear for you...

Earth is a planet in the Milky Way galaxy which has about 200 to 400 billion stars. The most recent estimate of how many galaxies are there compared to what we can see is about 500 billion galaxies.

You do the math... We know NOTHING/ZERO about the universe compared to its size and our place in the whole puzzle.

And you want me to come with a coherent theory about reality and life? or anyways try... What for?

All we have at the moment are LOCAL theories and nothing more... and we have plenty of them. When you actually start to think universally, all you have are assumptions on how the universe works, God etc etc...

People nowadays have access to information. That is why many atheists behave in a certain way that might offend you.

The problem is that Christianity is not interested in exploring and finding more information... You already seem to have the answer for everything in the Bible... Well, that is where the outrageous starts... And of course some people do not agree with that and there is where you get people doing this and that. It's just a reaction to your inflexibility.

jlay wrote:Positive results? Better? These are terms that infer an objective measure. Again, you are smuggling in the objective notion that mankinds happiness, safety, etc. matter. But you are in no way accounting for this. It works? That isn't an answer. You haven't even begun to deal with the ontological question. We also know that logic 'works,' but its working doesn't account for its being. So, unless you care to address this, we are back asking, who cares? Works for who? You? Who are you to force your preferences on me? Maybe I think total anarchy works. (I don't of course)

Actually positive and better are quite relative... What is positive for me, doesn't necessarily have to be positive for you (same with better).

jlay wrote:Who are you to force your preferences on me?

Nobody forces anything on you... and let's say that someone actually tries to force something on you: you do have a choice to follow or not to follow... so at the end of the day, the question is: can I really force my preferences on you?

SkepticalSkeeter wrote:

Thadeyus wrote:I, too, am happy with SkepticalSeeker's definition. Though, sadly, getting a consensus on such here seems a daunting task.

It's not my definition, it's the definition in the dictionary.

And this is exactly what I was saying earlier. It seems you guys, not us Christians, are confusing what "Christian" is.

SS, here is a quote of your original words:

SS wrote:Merriam-Webster - Christian : a person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ

That one works for me as well, but I have a hunch it's going to get me another snarky emoticon and condescending lecture...

Do you, or do you not accept this definition? Or do you too believe in Atheist Christians too if say, for example, an infant is baptised at birth into the RCC?

The irony is that, you did not get a snarky emotion and condescending lecture, but rather Thad and I were able to agree on this definition. Then what do you do? You seem to get snarky and smack Thad for me/him being confused by your words. No wonder getting consensus is so daunting here when a definition is placed out, and then snatched away.

Anyway... very much cheers to you and all. (sorry to steal your line Thad, but I quite like it -- seriously )

Byblos wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Anyway, I'd encourage you to look beyond the RCC and labels of one particular church denomination or the other. While such may influence one's Christianity, such do nothing to make one a Christian -- which I'm sure even Byblos as a well-reasoned and more free-thinking Catholic would agree with

You probably said that in jest so would it surprise you if I said I'd agree? One must learn how to walk before they can run a marathon. It makes no sense to talk about the RCC or any other denomination or church, or any other religion for that matter, if the question of the existence of God is still on the table. I would never in a million years try to convince an atheist that God exists by appealing to the Catholic Church.

Thanks Byblos for affirming.

It wasn't said in jest, I rather expected you would agree. I did not want to speak for the Catholic side of things though, so was just deferring to you for comment with the .

BryanH wrote: Actually positive and better are quite relative... What is positive for me, doesn't necessarily have to be positive for you (same with better).

Bryan, all you've done here is confirm my point. Unfortunately, you've been here almost two years and we are still having to offer you the same remedial lessons on objectivity. Your feedback seeks to disprove my point, yet actually affirms, and the sad part is you likely don't even realize this.
I'm certain we've used the ice cream example before. If I say vanilla ice cream is BETTER than chocolate, then what am I saying? Not much. Just that I prefer vanilla over chocolate. So, do you really think that when SS says that the Golden Rule is BETTER than 'only the strong survive,' that he is simply saying it's a relative, subjective preference? Of course not. He is really saying it REALLY is better. Not just one person's (or groups) preference versus another. You see Bryan, like it has been pointed out to you ad-naseum, you simply are not willing to follow your line of reasoning all the way through to its logical conclusions. If someone breaks into your home, robs you at gun point, and shoots your family in front of you, is it wrong? If you go by your position, then it is simply not your preference to be robbed, etc. But, the person robbing you can say, "It's my preference to do these things. It's better for me." It's just your preference versus theirs. And as you said, you can't FORCE him to follow your preference. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds. You don't live like that. You want society to FORCE your preference on the criminal. And rightly so. Your preference to not be robbed, etc, really is BETTER than the preferences of the perpetrator. In this case, your preference BETTER lines up with objective morality.

jlay wrote:Who are you to force your preferences on me?

Nobody forces anything on you... and let's say that someone actually tries to force something on you: you do have a choice to follow or not to follow... so at the end of the day, the question is: can I really force my preferences on you?

Again, you just don't get it. And to put it candidly, considering how long you've been part of the forum, it's sad. And instead of humbly admitting your worldview is faulty and not to be trusted, you will reply with some untenable defense.

jlay wrote: Bryan, all you've done here is confirm my point. Unfortunately, you've been here almost two years and we are still having to offer you the same remedial lessons on objectivity. Your feedback seeks to disprove my point, yet actually affirms, and the sad part is you likely don't even realize this.
I'm certain we've used the ice cream example before. If I say vanilla ice cream is BETTER than chocolate, then what am I saying? Not much. Just that I prefer vanilla over chocolate. So, do you really think that when SS says that the Golden Rule is BETTER than 'only the strong survive,' that he is simply saying it's a relative, subjective preference? Of course not. He is really saying it REALLY is better. Not just one person's (or groups) preference versus another. You see Bryan, like it has been pointed out to you ad-naseum, you simply are not willing to follow your line of reasoning all the way through to its logical conclusions. If someone breaks into your home, robs you at gun point, and shoots your family in front of you, is it wrong? If you go by your position, then it is simply not your preference to be robbed, etc. But, the person robbing you can say, "It's my preference to do these things. It's better for me." It's just your preference versus theirs. And as you said, you can't FORCE him to follow your preference. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds. You don't live like that. You want society to FORCE your preference on the criminal. And rightly so. Your preference to not be robbed, etc, really is BETTER than the preferences of the perpetrator. In this case, your preference BETTER lines up with objective morality.

As I have probably said last time when you provided this example: the ice-cream example is quite good, but you present in a very simplistic manner that suits your worldview instead of actually analyzing what REALLY happens in REALITY.

I tried to explain you quite a few times giving you a number of examples from history where things have been changed according to a preference. But you can't simply talk about me and you. When you talk about something at a SOCIETAL level, you need to talk about GROUPS.

And YES, groups sometimes fight so they can CHANGE an already existing ORDER.
YES, people decide what is good and what is wrong for them. That seems to trouble you.

So you can have 1000 theories saying that something is wrong. It's still a theory. Don't forget that science starts from a theory and then TESTS that theory to see if it actually stands its ground in REALITY.

As far as I am concerned, as it seems your theory is quite sound from a logical point of view, but what do you know: REALITY contradicts you... so it's still a matter of words on paper...

P.S.: And you still haven't given a satisfactory answer (you tried to) to why GOD MURDERED people or given his followers orders to do so.

As logic dictates and you have stated this way too many times, GOD is PURE MORALITY and ALL GOOD.

It is wrong to murder people, right?

BryanH wrote:It is wrong to murder people, right?

On what logical grounds of reality do you claim this?

It is not wrong if we accept "what REALLY happen[ed] in REALITY." Or... according to your view of reality anyway.

What you're questioning here is not "God's existence" but rather what God would be like if He were real. One is a philosophical question, the other is theological.

Somehow, I don't think you're really interested in a Christian theological response, in which case your question should be ignored. Jlay is smarter than to response to your question. And I will personally also ignore it, but if any Christian here is troubled then I extend an invitation to privately message me with their doubts.

These are issues Christians and obviously Jewish people would discuss. You can go searching for answers if they are serious questions. But, if some Christian here responds to you, then I have no doubt that you'd simply catch a taxi cab back to your Atheism after starting a Judaic-Christian discussion, and cry foul for us not giving you philosophically neutral response.

But here is a different kind of response. You have nothing to stand on in your own view of the world to logically claim that anything is really sincerely wrong beyond some sort of feelings on the matter.

Murder on your view may be distasteful, even socially distasteful, but it doesn't mean it's really wrong for some outcast or alien life form to wipe out all of humanity. One good Atheist friend even put to me, "it would be good for other life here on Earth if no humans existed." So there may even actually be some more universal logic above humanity in favour of wiping all us humans out. I'm sure similar thoughts have even crossed your own mind.

Further, on your view we're just chemicals that somehow formed in a particular arrangement, and at the end of the day other then the fact we somehow experience "empathy" there is nothing really wrong with chemicals and physical processes carrying out in their own manner.

So WHAT is YOUR issue with people murdering other people if we REALLY accept "REALITY" for what it is?

@Kurieuo

First of all please do not take my words out of context... You have quoted something that wasn't meant for you in the first place and that is related to an older discussion. If you are actually interested go read that first.

Again, if you do quote me and provide an answer please do so accordingly.

So WHAT is YOUR issue with people murdering other people if we REALLY accept "REALITY" for what it is?

Your question is void given that you quoted me out of context...

And anyways, I have already provided an answer for that.

Sometimes I wonder if you actually read my posts at all or you just quote what ever suits you mate.

If I say that society changes and people CAN CHANGE an EXISTING ORDER what does that mean to you?

Does that mean that people accept reality or does it mean that they CHANGE it?

It is LOGICAL enough for you that people CAN CHANGE?

BryanH wrote:It is wrong to murder people, right?

Bryan, we both know that you are attempting to set the table here. Next comes, "God commanded.., or what about killing in self-defense, etc."
Murder is wrong. Period. Murder is one human taking another human's life out of malice. So, stop trying to move the goal post. K was right on target when he said, What you're questioning here is not "God's existence" but rather what God would be like if He were real.
The argument is an ontological one. Do objective morals exist.

I tried to explain you quite a few times giving you a number of examples from history where things have been changed according to a preference. But you can't simply talk about me and you. When you talk about something at a SOCIETAL level, you need to talk about GROUPS.

And you are not going to get an argument from me, because this PROVES nothing. You are assuming that because the preference of groups change given time and circumstances that this negates OM. But Bryan, you have never offered any evidence of this. If the speed limit on Main Street is 45 mph, and the city votes to change it to 35 mph, what does that have to do with the objective truth that speed limits (among other rules) are needed for driver safety. The subjective rule (45 or 35) in no way disproves the objective need for limits. Otherwise, it would also be correct to say that a 2 mph speed limit is as valid an option as, "Drive as fast as you want on whichever side of the road suits you." Again, you simply aren't willing to follow your own view through to its logical ends.

And YES, groups sometimes fight so they can CHANGE an already existing ORDER.
YES, people decide what is good and what is wrong for them. That seems to trouble you.

Trouble? I can perfectly account for subjective morals in my worldview. Unless you'd like to show with examples where that is a problem, then please stop building strawmen.

Take Chattel slaverey for example. One society approved the practice and another disapproved. And, as you mention, they fought to change it. But why? What you propose (if you consistently follow your logic) is that neither was objectively right or wrong. They just had different preferences. And, of course one did force their preference on the other. The fact is that we can examine the ethics of society and determine that one truly is better than another. So, we are back to BETTER, WORSE, etc. You are saying these terms are only subjective, but we've already demonstrated that not to be the case. Now, let me clarify. That doesn't mean that those terms cannot be used in a subjective way. Of course they can. For example, "I like vanilla BETTER than chocolate." But this doesn't address the point. Because, I can not also in the same way say that vanilla is BETTER than chocolate, for all people, in all times and in all places.

However, we can say that murder (as defined above) is wrong in all times and all places for all people.

So you can have 1000 theories saying that something is wrong. It's still a theory. Don't forget that science starts from a theory and then TESTS that theory to see if it actually stands its ground in REALITY.

This statement implies that you don't know the difference in physics and metaphysics.

P.S.: And you still haven't given a satisfactory answer (you tried to) to why GOD MURDERED people or given his followers orders to do so.

As logic dictates and you have stated this way too many times, GOD is PURE MORALITY and ALL GOOD.

God cannot murder. It is a logical impossibility. Period, end of story. And as K pointed out, in this case the argument is whether OM exist, and not on any specific issues you have with the God of the Bible.

Kurieuo wrote:Do you, or do you not accept this definition? Or do you too believe in Atheist Christians too if say, for example, an infant is baptised at birth into the RCC?

The irony is that, you did not get a snarky emotion and condescending lecture, but rather Thad and I were able to agree on this definition. Then what do you do? You seem to get snarky and smack Thad for me/him being confused by your words. No wonder getting consensus is so daunting here when a definition is placed out, and then snatched away.

What on earth are you on about? I posted a dictionary definition that I found perfectly acceptable, and then Furstentum Liechtenstein replied that the dictionary definition was laughable, the only way to get an accurate definition was to pull it out of the Bible, and anyone who didn't do so was as ignorant as a mechanic without a cake pan, or some such. I also opted to stay completely out of your debate with Thad. Ease off the eggnog, sport. It's making your mind all fuzzy.

BryanH wrote:@Kurieuo

First of all please do not take my words out of context... You have quoted something that wasn't meant for you in the first place and that is related to an older discussion. If you are actually interested go read that first.

Again, if you do quote me and provide an answer please do so accordingly.

So WHAT is YOUR issue with people murdering other people if we REALLY accept "REALITY" for what it is?

Your question is void given that you quoted me out of context...

And anyways, I have already provided an answer for that.

Sometimes I wonder if you actually read my posts at all or you just quote what ever suits you mate.

If I say that society changes and people CAN CHANGE an EXISTING ORDER what does that mean to you?

Does that mean that people accept reality or does it mean that they CHANGE it?

It is LOGICAL enough for you that people CAN CHANGE?

Bryan,

If I accept what you have written, then I'm forced to conclude we are correct.

That is, you do in fact believe morality is a matter of taste = there is no "real" right or wrong. Only an order of morality defined within society. And yet, for me to conclude this seems too simple.

Too simple, because you resist cleanly stating that you do not believe morality truly exists, or at best that belief in it is an illusion much similar to belief in God.

The only coherently logical response with a view that excludes God is to embrace there being no such thing as moral good or bad, only benefits and disadvantages.

And yet, Atheists (?) like yourself will often equivocate "social consensus" with "goodness" or "benefits" with "goodness" to try and hold onto some semblance of Moral Realism. But this will not do. For if we embrace such equivocations, then we do not respect our true self, become contradictory with our self and even impractical when our conscience screams something can be bad regardless of logical benefits or order.

There is an easy coherent way out for the Atheistic view of the world. Simply embrace morality is at best an illusion brought on by evolution. Be happy for your sake that you live in an area that hopefully many believe it to be true, and so won't kill you and take advantage of you at every turn. Ignore any moral conscience as much as possible since it is just an evolutionary vestige in your life. And to live a better life, take advantage of these realizations to benefit you as much as possible.

Such a view must be very liberating for the person who just embraces it, rather than tries to cling onto morality. You only have you to live up to. What is grander? Sadly, it is also one that leads to psychopathic immoral atrocities, but then if morality doesn't really exist then why play to "fairy tail" of good and evil. Just trust in and go with yourself.