Evidence for God from Science

Squible wrote:Kenny,

I am not going to respond to what you wrote at any length.

What I will say is you don't actually understand what skepticism really is. That much is evident especially given what your definition of skepticism is and also how you answered with regard to the brain in the vat scenario.

Basically you have answered both responses incoherently with regard to what was said, misunderstood points, twisted words, setup straw men arguments and continued to use tautologies.

You even attempted to use Hitler against my position, which blew my mind. This clearly demonstrates that you don't understand what you are dealing with, because it actually supports my position. Especially when we say it was wrong to do it.

Anyway this is too exhausting to unpack and as such I am going to let others read and they can decide for themselves.

Perhaps someone else who agrees with you will be willing to chime in and defend your position.

Peace
Ken

Kenny,

I think you should read very carefully what I wrote. I choose my words very carefully in order to express my position . Even as a theist I understand there is not complete certainty, however we take "claims" on a holistic approach and review the evidence in its entirety and use a cumulative case for Gods existence.

An example where you didn't read properly is the blind faith and perfection comment. I never claimed to know with certainty as you seemed to interpret it. I said despite being flawed why is it we have a SENSE of perfection and its existence.

Moreover scepticism is a philosophical position it's not just about rejectiong claims. It's also a theory of how to obtain true knowledge and so on. Having said that you will hold to the claim that scepticism brings you true knowledge. You should also be sceptical of that claim and your philosophical position if you are a true sceptic.

It seems that you have chosen your definition in order to suit your own desires and this is something you should question. You should also question your own ability to reason and your faculties if you are a sceptic.

This leads me to ask why are you even here? What's your objectives?

If people read carefully my position they will see your responses didn't cohere with what was said.

On a final note you still haven't offered a reason why we ought to honour your definition of morality.

Anyway I wanted to explain things further for those to read and decide for themselves.

I see no real point discussing the issue further with you because I see it as futile.

Cheers,

Squibile

Squible wrote:Kenny,

I think you should read very carefully what I wrote. I choose my words very carefully in order to express my position . Even as a theist I understand there is not complete certainty, however we take "claims" on a holistic approach and review the evidence in its entirety and use a cumulative case for Gods existence.

An example where you didn't read properly is the blind faith and perfection comment. I never claimed to know with certainty as you seemed to interpret it. I said despite being flawed why is it we have a SENSE of perfection and its existence.

Moreover scepticism is a philosophical position it's not just about rejectiong claims. It's also a theory of how to obtain true knowledge and so on. Having said that you will hold to the claim that scepticism brings you true knowledge. You should also be sceptical of that claim and your philosophical position if you are a true sceptic.

It seems that you have chosen your definition in order to suit your own desires and this is something you should question. You should also question your own ability to reason and your faculties if you are a sceptic.

This leads me to ask why are you even here? What's your objectives?

If people read carefully my position they will see your responses didn't cohere with what was said.

On a final note you still haven't offered a reason why we ought to honour your definition of morality.

Anyway I wanted to explain things further for those to read and decide for themselves.

I see no real point discussing the issue further with you because I see it as futile.

Cheers,

Squibile

Squible
Kenny,

I think you should read very carefully what I wrote. I choose my words very carefully in order to express my position . Even as a theist I understand there is not complete certainty, however we take "claims" on a holistic approach and review the evidence in its entirety and use a cumulative case for Gods existence.
Ken
What does this have to do with the questions I’ve asked you?

Squible
An example where you didn't read properly is the blind faith and perfection comment. I never claimed to know with certainty as you seemed to interpret it.
Ken
If you aren’t certain God is perfect, why didn’t you say so?

Squible
I said despite being flawed why is it we have a SENSE of perfection and its existence.
Ken
That is a loaded question. How many times did I say I don’t believe perfection exist? If you believe we have a SENSE of perfection and its existence; that’s fine! But don’t expect me to believe it, and don’t ask me where it comes from.

Squible
Moreover scepticism is a philosophical position it's not just about rejectiong claims. It's also a theory of how to obtain true knowledge and so on. Having said that you will hold to the claim that scepticism brings you true knowledge
Ken
A sceptic is defined as a person with a questioning attitude of claims presented as facts. The philosophical position of scepticism is that all claims should be well supported by evidence. If you wanted to know what I meant when I referred to myself as a sceptic, you should have asked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
Squible
You should also be sceptical of that claim and your philosophical position if you are a true sceptic.
Ken
Are you kidding me??? You are suggesting I should be sceptical of the idea that claims should be supported with evidence? Why? Please explain why!

Squible
It seems that you have chosen your definition in order to suit your own desires and this is something you should question.
Ken
And what desires are those? What desires am I trying to suite by claiming I have a questioning attitude towards claims as facts and that I believe claims should be supported by evidence.
Squible
This leads me to ask why are you even here? What's your objectives?
Ken
I am here to talk to people like you.

Squible
If people read carefully my position they will see your responses didn't cohere with what was said.
Ken
If that were true, you would have explained why. I answered nearly all of your questions, line by line. You responded by accusing me of straw man arguments, twisting words, and responding incoherently. You did all of this without providing examples.
Squible
On a final note you still haven't offered a reason why we ought to honour your definition of morality
Ken
I never said you should! How many times have I said I only speak for myself? Perhaps you should have read more carefully what I actually said.

Ken

Kenny wrote: Squible
I think you should read very carefully what I wrote. I choose my words very carefully in order to express my position . Even as a theist I understand there is not complete certainty, however we take "claims" on a holistic approach and review the evidence in its entirety and use a cumulative case for Gods existence.
Ken
What does this have to do with the questions I’ve asked you?

The statement wasn't intended to answer your questions. It was a statement of how theists generally come to their conclusions.
So then what does your question have to do with my statement?

Kenny wrote: Squible
An example where you didn't read properly is the blind faith and perfection comment. I never claimed to know with certainty as you seemed to interpret it.
Ken
If you aren’t certain God is perfect, why didn’t you say so?

This is a textbook definition of a loaded question. But I will answer it.

I didn't mention God or Gods attributes. Not unless you care to show everyone reading this where I did.

We were talking about the "sense of perfection and [sense of] it's existence" . I didn't even mention God. You responded in a way that phrased that I claimed perfection exists with absolute certainty and then attacked that position.
The point is I didn't make a claim based on absolute certainty of something's existence! I said why is there a SENSE of! perfection and SENSE of! it's existence.

And now here you are bringing God and Gods attributes into the argument!

This is a clear example of how incoherent you are Kenny! You distort what people say add to their the current proposition and then attack what you have added instead of the actual proposition they stated.

Kenny wrote: Squible
I said despite being flawed why is it we have a SENSE of perfection and its existence.
Ken
That is a loaded question. How many times did I say I don’t believe perfection exist? If you believe we have a SENSE of perfection and its existence; that’s fine! But don’t expect me to believe it, and don’t ask me where it comes from.

I think you should understand what a loaded question actually is. This is not a loaded question. It is still the one continuous thought.

You agreed that we are flawed. Therefore you have sense of what a flawed existence is. Unless you don't exist?

What is the opposite of flawed Kenny? What is it to be not flawed?

If you don't believe there is a sense of perfection and [a sense of] its existence (as in what that would be) (and note I said sense) how is it you know what it is to have a flawed existence?

Kenny wrote: Squible
Moreover scepticism is a philosophical position it's not just about rejectiong claims. It's also a theory of how to obtain true knowledge and so on. Having said that you will hold to the claim that scepticism brings you true knowledge
Ken
A sceptic is defined as a person with a questioning attitude of claims presented as facts. The philosophical position of scepticism is that all claims should be well supported by evidence. If you wanted to know what I meant when I referred to myself as a sceptic, you should have asked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
Squible
You should also be sceptical of that claim and your philosophical position if you are a true sceptic.
Ken
Are you kidding me??? You are suggesting I should be sceptical of the idea that claims should be supported with evidence? Why? Please explain why!

Are you kidding me? You send someone who is into philosophy a simple wikipedia page of what scepticism is.

You do realise there is centuries of history with this position. How about you look into Rene Descarte. Interesting how you are a sceptic and you barely understand your own position and the reasons for and against it.

I also notice you excluded my statement that you should also be sceptical about your own reasoning and faculties.

Go and read up on scepticism Kenny, understand your own position and its history.

Kenny wrote: Squible
It seems that you have chosen your definition in order to suit your own desires and this is something you should question.
Ken
And what desires are those? What desires am I trying to suite by claiming I have a questioning attitude towards claims as facts and that I believe claims should be supported by evidence.

That's for you to decide what those desires are. I didn't claim what they were and others can form their own conclusion as to what they are with what you have responded with.

Kenny wrote: Squible
This leads me to ask why are you even here? What's your objectives?
Ken
I am here to talk to people like you.

Why?

And again what are your objectives?

Kenny wrote: Squible
If people read carefully my position they will see your responses didn't cohere with what was said.
Ken
If that were true, you would have explained why. I answered nearly all of your questions, line by line. You responded by accusing me of straw man arguments, twisting words, and responding incoherently. You did all of this without providing examples.

Just because someone doesn't want to explain why (and I gave my reasons) it doesn't logically follow that it is not true.

I find it interesting that you said I didn't provide any examples yet you cited one in this response.

In that example you fail to understand what the words "a sense of" means and as such you extrapolated beyond my position to then attack your own extrapolated position.

I also mentioned your use of Hitler etc. And that it supports my position not yours. I didn't go into detail because it is futile since you hold to a tautology. But for the benefit of others who read this... You basically attempted to say because Hitler etc didn't follow objective morals values and duties therefore they don't exist and my position is false. This doesn't follow. If objective morality does exist then it doesn’t follow that everyone will adhere to it and do what they ought to do. However given the fact we (as in most of the world) can say it was absolutely wrong for Hitler etc to do what they did indicates they do exist. Under your view it's clear you can't claim what they did was actually wrong.

Kenny wrote: Squible
On a final note you still haven't offered a reason why we ought to honour your definition of morality
Ken
I never said you should! How many times have I said I only speak for myself? Perhaps you should have read more carefully what I actually said.

Okay Kenny if you want to play it this way and be uncharitable and pick on the word "we" then why ought you follow your definition of morality? And what standard are you using to determine that ought?

Since you speak for yourself do you answer yourself?

Perhaps you should lookup solipsism while you study scepticism

Since you like Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Squible wrote:Hi Audie,

Some great questions!

Audie wrote: I wanted to know if "moral existence" has some special meaning. Does it just refer to "the reality that morality exists"?

The reality of moral existence itself. This is not simply referring to why it exists on planet earth, the known universe or just within humanity. It really means why does it exist at all.

"Moral" is just an adjective there, describing existence. I have no idea what you mean by "moral existence". I asked what is it. Its not a "why " question.

Squible wrote:

Audie wrote: The philosopher questions seem like a good intellectual exercise, and
likely to be good for many more centuries. That is fine, but I see a problem if one thinks the Answer is to be
found that way.

Philosophy will exist as long as we do. We all hold to a philosophical position. We even do about the physical world itself.

Do you realize that methodological naturalism that science uses is actually a philosophical position? You can thank philosophers for that. However it also takes good philosophy to understand what it can and can't tell you about the physical world. Today science can also be known as naturalized epistemology, which is a philosophical position.

More importantly Logic, critical reasoning skills and being able to recognize fallacies comes from philosophy. Ethics comes from philosophy, theories of knowledge, truth theories, metaphysics, in fact your culture holds to a philosophy (worldview).

Did you know there is philosophy of science? Which is about science itself and helps inform what science should be and what its demarcations are. There's philosophy of mathematics , philosophy of religion the list is literally endless.

Plenty of answers have been found through philosophy. Unfortunately many people seem to think philosophy is a bunch of guys walking around picking their navels while wearing sheets. This simply isn't the case.

As William Lane Craig once said "those who denounce philosophy will be deceived by it". And I can assure that statement is very true.

yes, plenty of answers, lower case. it will not provide Answers, upper case. Im not interested in what "many" think. I just observed that peole go off the rails if they think final Answers are to be found there.

Squible wrote:

Audie wrote: Am I understanding correctly that the ancient Greeks attempted to address many things entirely
thru thought, without reference to external data, corroborating evidence from experiment and observation ?

This is not entirely true. For example Aristotle came up with his theories of causation, beginnings of realism, and initial metaphysical positions both through observation and thought. Incidentally this leads you to the unmoved mover (ie: God).

The reality is even today many philosophers do use evidence and science to in form their positions. Their position could be extrapolated from that evidence using reason and so on.

Philosophy is far deeper then people realize.

Its true enough. Again, Im not concerned with what many people think or realize.

Squible wrote:

Audie wrote: I see some Christians go off the rails that way, using the bible as the only and ultimate guide.
The paleontologist Dr. Kurt Wise being a noteworthy example, saying he'd still be a yec if
all the evidence in the universe went the other way, because of what the bible seems to say.

This seems a little off topic. But I'll respond.

I don't even know who Kurt Wise is. I am actually not a YEC. Having said that, there is absolutely no mandate to read genesis literally in the way YECs do. Also the YEC interpretation is quite new, for example an early church father by the name of Augustine around 400AD made a great point and I am paraphrasing here that we should be careful how we interpret scripture and that we should take a two book approach, which is the bible and the book of nature (natural revelation / knowledge gained from nature).

I said who he is, and you could look him up. The point which perhaps you missed is that
he like many Christians think the Bible is the Source or inerrant truth. So, he raeds the bible, finds "yec", and no external data makes the least difference.

I think the philosophers have a bit of tendency to do the same, trying to get to the Truth with just philosophy. I observed that people go off the rails if they think final Answers are to be found there... just by study of the bible, or philosophy without adequate reference to outside sources of information.

Squible wrote:

Audie wrote: Philosophy wont be able to ever say why evolution has gone as it has, but research provides some good answers.

I agree that research can provide some good answers. But as to the ultimate why has it formed beings who can experience the universe, do you think science can ever answer that? Science is fairly limited in what it can tell us, and it is only one way to seek truth.

Science does not do "truth' and seeking the ultimate "why" is a good hobby, maybe, for those who are interested, knowing they will never get to it.

Do you feel philosophy could get to an ultimate "why"? On what basis might one decide that such a thing even exists, has any actual meaning?

And do you honestly think philosophy plays no part in it?

Nothing I said implies that in any way.

Squible wrote:

Audie wrote: I cant agree at all that evolution does not address the why / what questions you posed, except on the level of, say,
"Why does anything exist?".

I agree it will depend on the type of why question. Now forgive me if I am not 100% correct in my terminology here.. But lets say for example why did something adapt a particular way may be answered. Or what influences caused certain epigenetic changes to occur may be answered.

However you can't say why evolution came about using evolution itself, because this is basically circular reasoning.

Call it as you will, its nonsensical to talk that way. Ask why snowflakes form, same thing.
Or, if you like a straightforward "why' Id say because the basic nature of matter and energy leads to snowflakes, and evolution. Same as rain falling randomly on the land leads to the formation of rivers, caves, deltas and so on.

It also seems with this comment that you are wanting to ground morality into evolution?

I dont know what "ground it into" means. If you mean that i see morality as something that evolved, yes. When people got smart enough to be able to think about it, they took it from there. Learned how to rationalize their way out of doing what is instinctively right, for example.

Sure you could attempt to answer a why with something like "because it gives an advantage to the species" but this explains absolutely nothing about morality and its existence. It also gets messy when you start putting things in survival terms and so on.

That is your opinion, but I dont know why you say think it. It seems ever so plain to me that it explains it splendidly.

Also, the odd thing with morality is that there is an oughtness to it. Because there is this oughtness with morality someone for example can't say it is a behavioral pattern, because it is really an internal compulsion that compels us to choose certain behaviors to do what's right – even though this moral incumbency can be denied or disobeyed. Having said that If the moral element is prior to the behavior, then it can't be the behavior itself.

I dunno, you seem to just be confusing yourself with things like your last sentence.. There is a strong compulsive element to "morality' / altrusim as seen in animals. We do the same things, and think up a word for the inner compulsion, "ought'.

At best evolution could explain how we have obtained/come to know morality. The bottom line is evolution cannot explain why morality exists at all.

Now THERE is an assertion of facts not in evidence. You really cannot build much of structure on such things. Its an example of inadequate reference to information from outside philosophy / bible that i mentioned earlier.

Or, it may just be the every receding "why' that can no more reached than one can get to a heat mirage on the pavement.

Squible wrote:

Audie wrote: Early morning at Starbucks with tiny mobile device.

Wow that must be frustrating to write with! I admire that you have taken the time and persistence to actually interact on this topic given how difficult it must be to do so.

[/quote]

I bet I am messing up the quote. It is yes, very frustrating, esp when something disappears. Please excuse the rather abrupt style of the above, I wanted to respond today, but Im five minutes over time already.

I dont mean to be rude, please allow for that.

thanks Yourmod. I wish someone would come fix it every time Im rude

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote: Squible
I think you should read very carefully what I wrote. I choose my words very carefully in order to express my position . Even as a theist I understand there is not complete certainty, however we take "claims" on a holistic approach and review the evidence in its entirety and use a cumulative case for Gods existence.
Ken
What does this have to do with the questions I’ve asked you?

The statement wasn't intended to answer your questions. It was a statement of how theists generally come to their conclusions.
So then what does your question have to do with my statement?

Kenny wrote: Squible
An example where you didn't read properly is the blind faith and perfection comment. I never claimed to know with certainty as you seemed to interpret it.
Ken
If you aren’t certain God is perfect, why didn’t you say so?

This is a textbook definition of a loaded question. But I will answer it.

I didn't mention God or Gods attributes. Not unless you care to show everyone reading this where I did.

We were talking about the "sense of perfection and [sense of] it's existence" . I didn't even mention God. You responded in a way that phrased that I claimed perfection exists with absolute certainty and then attacked that position.
The point is I didn't make a claim based on absolute certainty of something's existence! I said why is there a SENSE of! perfection and SENSE of! it's existence.

And now here you are bringing God and Gods attributes into the argument!

This is a clear example of how incoherent you are Kenny! You distort what people say add to their the current proposition and then attack what you have added instead of the actual proposition they stated.

Kenny wrote: Squible
I said despite being flawed why is it we have a SENSE of perfection and its existence.
Ken
That is a loaded question. How many times did I say I don’t believe perfection exist? If you believe we have a SENSE of perfection and its existence; that’s fine! But don’t expect me to believe it, and don’t ask me where it comes from.

I think you should understand what a loaded question actually is. This is not a loaded question. It is still the one continuous thought.

You agreed that we are flawed. Therefore you have sense of what a flawed existence is. Unless you don't exist?

What is the opposite of flawed Kenny? What is it to be not flawed?

If you don't believe there is a sense of perfection and [a sense of] its existence (as in what that would be) (and note I said sense) how is it you know what it is to have a flawed existence?

Kenny wrote: Squible
Moreover scepticism is a philosophical position it's not just about rejectiong claims. It's also a theory of how to obtain true knowledge and so on. Having said that you will hold to the claim that scepticism brings you true knowledge
Ken
A sceptic is defined as a person with a questioning attitude of claims presented as facts. The philosophical position of scepticism is that all claims should be well supported by evidence. If you wanted to know what I meant when I referred to myself as a sceptic, you should have asked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
Squible
You should also be sceptical of that claim and your philosophical position if you are a true sceptic.
Ken
Are you kidding me??? You are suggesting I should be sceptical of the idea that claims should be supported with evidence? Why? Please explain why!

Are you kidding me? You send someone who is into philosophy a simple wikipedia page of what scepticism is.

You do realise there is centuries of history with this position. How about you look into Rene Descarte. Interesting how you are a sceptic and you barely understand your own position and the reasons for and against it.

I also notice you excluded my statement that you should also be sceptical about your own reasoning and faculties.

Go and read up on scepticism Kenny, understand your own position and its history.

Kenny wrote: Squible
It seems that you have chosen your definition in order to suit your own desires and this is something you should question.
Ken
And what desires are those? What desires am I trying to suite by claiming I have a questioning attitude towards claims as facts and that I believe claims should be supported by evidence.

That's for you to decide what those desires are. I didn't claim what they were and others can form their own conclusion as to what they are with what you have responded with.

Kenny wrote: Squible
This leads me to ask why are you even here? What's your objectives?
Ken
I am here to talk to people like you.

Why?

And again what are your objectives?

Kenny wrote: Squible
If people read carefully my position they will see your responses didn't cohere with what was said.
Ken
If that were true, you would have explained why. I answered nearly all of your questions, line by line. You responded by accusing me of straw man arguments, twisting words, and responding incoherently. You did all of this without providing examples.

Just because someone doesn't want to explain why (and I gave my reasons) it doesn't logically follow that it is not true.

I find it interesting that you said I didn't provide any examples yet you cited one in this response.

In that example you fail to understand what the words "a sense of" means and as such you extrapolated beyond my position to then attack your own extrapolated position.

I also mentioned your use of Hitler etc. And that it supports my position not yours. I didn't go into detail because it is futile since you hold to a tautology. But for the benefit of others who read this... You basically attempted to say because Hitler etc didn't follow objective morals values and duties therefore they don't exist and my position is false. This doesn't follow. If objective morality does exist then it doesn’t follow that everyone will adhere to it and do what they ought to do. However given the fact we (as in most of the world) can say it was absolutely wrong for Hitler etc to do what they did indicates they do exist. Under your view it's clear you can't claim what they did was actually wrong.

Kenny wrote: Squible
On a final note you still haven't offered a reason why we ought to honour your definition of morality
Ken
I never said you should! How many times have I said I only speak for myself? Perhaps you should have read more carefully what I actually said.

Okay Kenny if you want to play it this way and be uncharitable and pick on the word "we" then why ought you follow your definition of morality? And what standard are you using to determine that ought?

Since you speak for yourself do you answer yourself?

Perhaps you should lookup solipsism while you study scepticism

Since you like Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Squible
The statement wasn't intended to answer your questions. It was a statement of how theists generally come to their conclusions.
So then what does your question have to do with my statement?
Ken
They have little or nothing to do with each other.

Squible
This is a textbook definition of a loaded question. But I will answer it.
I didn't mention God or Gods attributes. Not unless you care to show everyone reading this where I did.
Ken
When I asked about perfection and blind faith, I didn’t even mention God. I simply asked how does a flawed person recognize and verify perfection.

Squible
We were talking about the "sense of perfection and [sense of] it's existence" . I didn't even mention God. You responded in a way that phrased that I claimed perfection exists with absolute certainty and then attacked that position.
Ken
My question was not meant to imply you claim perfection exists with absolute certainty. My question was how would an imperfect person recognize perfection.

Squible
The point is I didn't make a claim based on absolute certainty of something's existence! I said why is there a SENSE of! perfection and SENSE of! it's existence.
Ken
There may be a sense of what perfection is, but I don’t think there is a sense of it’s existence.
Squible
And now here you are bringing God and Gods attributes into the argument!
This is a clear example of how incoherent you are Kenny! You distort what people say add to their the current proposition and then attack what you have added instead of the actual proposition they stated.
Ken
Okay there has obviously been a misunderstanding here. The following is an exact quote of I the questions I asked:

However, if there were such a flawless and perfect standard, how would I (or anyone else flawed and imperfect) recognize it? How is a flawed being supposed to recognize a perfect being? If I experienced such a being and it said “X” is right; but because of my flaws I mistakenly assumed “X” to be wrong, I would assume this being is in error rather than myself and just assume it is just another flawed being, and when we do agree on an issue; because I recognize I could be wrong, he might be wrong on the same issue as I, but I will be unable to recognize it because of my flawed insight. So how is a flawed and imperfect person supposed to recognize perfection without employing blind faith? How do you recognize perfection? How do you verify what you are calling perfect IS perfect without employing blind faith? Because I don’t employ blind faith, I have to do the best I can and go with what makes sense to me.

If you will notice, I didn’t mention God, (even though with Christianity, there may be an assumption of God when talking about perfection) and I didn’t imply that you believe with certainty that perfection exists. You appear to have taken offense to my question but I can assure you that was not my intention.

Squible
I think you should understand what a loaded question actually is. This is not a loaded question. It is still the one continuous thought.
You agreed that we are flawed. Therefore you have sense of what a flawed existence is. Unless you don't exist?

What is the opposite of flawed Kenny? What is it to be not flawed?
If you don't believe there is a sense of perfection and [a sense of] its existence (as in what that would be) (and note I said sense) how is it you know what it is to have a flawed existence?
Ken
I know the definition of perfection; I just doubt its existence.

Squible
Are you kidding me? You send someone who is into philosophy a simple wikipedia page of what scepticism is.

You do realise there is centuries of history with this position. How about you look into Rene Descarte. Interesting how you are a sceptic and you barely understand your own position and the reasons for and against it.

Ken
When people refer to sceptics and sceptism they do so without studying the history of Rene Descarte. They refer to the definition of sceptics that is also provided by Wikipedia and dictionaries. That is the definition I was referring to when I referred to myself as a sceptic. Look at it this way; just as everybody who refers to themselves as Christian are not on one accord of what it means to be Christian; the same applies to sceptism.

Squible
I also notice you excluded my statement that you should also be sceptical about your own reasoning and faculties.
Ken
I see sufficient evidence to my satisfaction to support my claims. If I saw sufficient evidence to my satisfactory of everyone else’s claims; I wouldn’t be sceptical of them either.3

Squible
Why?

And again what are your objectives?
Ken
I’ve never claimed an objective for being here.

Squible
Just because someone doesn't want to explain why (and I gave my reasons) it doesn't logically follow that it is not true.
I find it interesting that you said I didn't provide any examples yet you cited one in this response.
In that example you fail to understand what the words "a sense of" means and as such you extrapolated beyond my position to then attack your own extrapolated position.
Ken
Actually my problem with with your claim of “it existence”. Having a sense of perfection I am okay with. I disagree with it’s existence.

Squible
I also mentioned your use of Hitler etc. And that it supports my position not yours. I didn't go into detail because it is futile since you hold to a tautology. But for the benefit of others who read this... You basically attempted to say because Hitler etc didn't follow objective morals values and duties therefore they don't exist and my position is false. This doesn't follow. If objective morality does exist then it doesn’t follow that everyone will adhere to it and do what they ought to do. However given the fact we (as in most of the world) can say it was absolutely wrong for Hitler etc to do what they did indicates they do exist. Under your view it's clear you can't claim what they did was actually wrong.
Ken
I have no idea how you came to this conclusion but it’s no wonder you took issue with my example of Hitler. You completely misunderstood everything I said. You claimed in order for someone to impose right or wrong upon others they are required to appeal to an authority outside humanity. The following is an exact quote: 10/18/14 8:43am

For another man (or group) to impose a wrong/right upon another person means they are appealing to some standard outside of humanity”

I disagreed and used Hitler as an example that the only thing necessary is to have power and authority over the people you impose on. It seems you took offense to this as well. This was not my intention.

Squible
Okay Kenny if you want to play it this way and be uncharitable and pick on the word "we" then why ought you follow your definition of morality? And what standard are you using to determine that ought?
Ken
Because it makes sense to me. I use my own standard.

K

Kenny,

Thanks for responding.

There was no offence taken just frustration.

I think there is no point in continuing this conversation it seems it is all over the place and riddled with misunderstandings.

Basically at this point it is like trying to add 42 and red and expect an outcome.

Cheers

Audie,

Thanks for your time. Especially with having to deal with responding using a mobile device. As much as I want to respond to all of what you said I won't because I get the feeling that the last post is starting to become a little snippy and I also have to use my time wisely.


I will only raise two key points in conclusion.

It seems that you are stereotyping and marginalizing YEC believers. If that's the case, and despite the fact I don't agree with the YEC position, I really do think it is uncharitable how you are framing it. I wish not to sound uncharitable myself but the irony is atheists can be just as dogmatic with respect to there being no design in nature and all that exists is just the natural world so any design is merely "apparent", despite others seeing the same external data and concluding evidence for design.

You're entitled to believe evolution is the ultimate source of morality and I respect your decision. But you need to contend with it ultimately coming from an amoral blind process, as such this too is a faith position. Having said that the thinking I see here when you ascribe morality ultimately to evolution can be best described as a tap where you see running water coming out and concluding that the tap is the actual cause/source. I would hope that you would reflect on that illustration and give it some food for thought.

Cheers

Squible wrote:Audie,

Thanks for your time. Especially with having to deal with responding using a mobile device. As much as I want to respond to all of what you said I won't because I get the feeling that the last post is starting to become a little snippy and I also have to use my time wisely.


I will only raise two key points in conclusion.

It seems that you are stereotyping and marginalizing YEC believers. If that's the case, and despite the fact I don't agree with the YEC position, I really do think it is uncharitable how you are framing it. I wish not to sound uncharitable myself but the irony is atheists can be just as dogmatic with respect to there being no design in nature and all that exists is just the natural world so any design is merely "apparent", despite others seeing the same external data and concluding evidence for design.

You're entitled to believe evolution is the ultimate source of morality and I respect your decision. But you need to contend with it ultimately coming from an amoral blind process, as such this too is a faith position. Having said that the thinking I see here when you ascribe morality ultimately to evolution can be best described as a tap where you see running water coming out and concluding that the tap is the actual cause/source. I would hope that you would reflect on that illustration and give it some food for thought.

Cheers

Evolutionary morality says it all...

...evidence of that is all around

If that is the case then ISIS is moral in beheading infidels...

Nazi's sending folks tot he death camps is morally correct

The Japanese Military in WW 2 in its butchery and barbarity is morally correct

Mao killing multiplied millions who disagreed with Marxist ideas is morally correct

All based upon good evolutionary morals

However the truth of the matter still stands: Human beings would never arrive at any sense of morality unless God had not interjected an objective moral standard that serves three purposes which are as follows:

One - Define right from wrong

Two - Reveal / expose the nature and character of sin

Three - Come to the realization that we need God as our Savior and none else which presents a just choice to humanity
-
-
-

Squible, it's saddening that your seed seems to have fallen to the side and on rocky ground.
BUT, I'm sure some made it into fertile soil with others reading.

Call it a public behind the back slap, but it is clear to me that you have provided very strong logic and reason.
Sadly, it is wasted on some lacking eloquence of their own, or perhaps education.

Apologies to offence caused, but it's just sickening at times. The distortions and blindness and all.
One reason I called for the "Questioning Non-belief" forum to be opened.
And when I put the test up, not one Atheist could do anything to support their beliefs.
Oh yes, Atheists have beliefs too. Unless their minds are vacant.

@ Kenny
I feel for you. People here are not your enemy, nor you Audie.
Really, I never understand those self-professing Atheists who believe in nothing coming here to dog Christians.
What's the point? It doesn't follow, unless you religiously believe in no god -- or should I say the god of self?

Squible wrote:Audie,

Thanks for your time. Especially with having to deal with responding using a mobile device. As much as I want to respond to all of what you said I won't because I get the feeling that the last post is starting to become a little snippy and I also have to use my time wisely.

Sorry, I had no intention to be snippy. And this is an actual computer this time.

I will only raise two key points in conclusion.

It seems that you are stereotyping and marginalizing YEC believers. If that's the case, and despite the fact I don't agree with the YEC position, I really do think it is uncharitable how you are framing it.

I dont really think it is a stereotype, more a description.. and I do know that "creationist" ranges from "God created at the BB, and things took care of themselves from there on" to a full blown 6 day, water canopy, flood, all that believer.

I dont mean to be uncharitable, but being brief came across as snippy and so forth.
A fuller discussion would be,you know, more nuanced.

I wish not to sound uncharitable myself but the irony is atheists can be just as dogmatic with respect to there being no design in nature

Again, what others think isnt my concern. But, I do note you agree with that the yec is a dogmatic sort, not inclined to view things from any perspective but the bible.
I see those who do philosophy with out adequately looking outside of the field as going as far astray.

You surely mean no intelligent design, design is everywhere.

and all that exists is just the natural world so any design is merely "apparent", despite others seeing the same external data and concluding evidence for design.

i was walking across campus one time with another girl, she picked up an autumn leaf and said, oh, its a sign from god, it represents the Trinity. ( the leaf actually have five parts)

The "smoking gun" for Design by God has not been found. I think its a perfectly good quest, and if its found, I will be flabbergasted, but I wont just dogmatically reject it.

You're entitled to believe evolution is the ultimate source of morality and I respect your decision. But you need to contend with it ultimately coming from an amoral blind process, as such this too is a faith position.

As one can see it in various stages, its a reasonable thing to think, no faith needed.
If Im wrong, Im wrong; but it appears to be evident. That there is a God who handed this to us is not evident in any thing one can observe.

Having said that the thinking I see here when you ascribe morality ultimately to evolution can be best described as a tap where you see running water coming out and concluding that the tap is the actual cause/source. I would hope that you would reflect on that illustration and give it some food for thought.

As long as you see asking "why" and various other ultimate answers as being equivalent to a cat pondering the ultimate source of catfood.

Did you actually think about how evolution can account for the existence of morality as we know it? You dismiss it, seemingly out of hand, with a 'bottom line, no" sort of comment.

I still never found out what moral existence is.

People, btw, tell me I am "wound up pretty tight" and things to that effect. I did apologize earlier for any appearance of rudeness, its not intended then or now.

Cheers

B. W. wrote:
Evolutionary morality says it all...

...evidence of that is all around

Im not sure what it says, as I am unfamiliar with this term, "evolutionary morality".

And, are you saying that evolved morals are what we are seeing, as in that morality in humans did evolve??

If that is the case then ISIS is moral in beheading infidels...

Nazi's sending folks tot he death camps is morally correct

The Japanese Military in WW 2 in its butchery and barbarity is morally correct

Mao killing multiplied millions who disagreed with Marxist ideas is morally correct

All based upon good evolutionary morals

You forgot to mention the inquisition, but never mind, one example is plenty.

Im not sure what you are getting at, but if you feel that one can use the theory of evolution to justify evil, sure, one can. You can use the Koran, the Bible, or a bad mood to justify evil. Nazi atrocities, if somehow connected to a misunderstanding and or perversion of ToE could have as well been based on something else, if taht is waht they were set to do.

I wonder what you mean by "evolutionary morals"?

Whether human behaviour came from evolution or a god, we are a flawed species, too smart for our own good, and behave very badly at times. What about human behaviour indicates that there is a god who showed the way?

However the truth of the matter still stands: Human beings would never arrive at any sense of morality unless God had not interjected an objective moral standard that serves three purposes which are as follows:

An assertion that this is the Truth carries no evidentiary value with me.
Did God, in your estimation, also provide animals with a rudimentary sense of morality?

It does have great survival value, for those animals that do altruism and other things similar to human morality.

One - Define right from wrong

That is an interesting problem, has kept people busy for millenia, no doubt.

Are you one who believes in moral absolutes, no grey areas, no overriding considerations, no moral ambiguities or conflicts?

Kurieuo wrote:Squible, it's saddening that your seed seems to have fallen to the side and on rocky ground.
BUT, I'm sure some made it into fertile soil with others reading.

Call it a public behind the back slap, but it is clear to me that you have provided very strong logic and reason.
Sadly, it is wasted on some lacking eloquence of their own, or perhaps education.

Apologies to offence caused, but it's just sickening at times. The distortions and blindness and all.
One reason I called for the "Questioning Non-belief" forum to be opened.
And when I put the test up, not one Atheist could do anything to support their beliefs.
Oh yes, Atheists have beliefs too. Unless their minds are vacant.

@ Kenny
I feel for you. People here are not your enemy, nor you Audie.
Really, I never understand those self-professing Atheists who believe in nothing coming here to dog Christians.
What's the point? It doesn't follow, unless you religiously believe in no god -- or should I say the god of self?

Well I see we are back to the same sort of uncharitable thoughts as the "welcome" I was first greeted to, complete some with stereotype and concocted calumny to heap on. So uncalled for, such a lesson in what I get for being too eager to trust someone.

Kurieuo wrote: One reason I called for the "Questioning Non-belief" forum to be opened.
And when I put the test up, not one Atheist could do anything to support their beliefs.
Oh yes, Atheists have beliefs too. Unless their minds are vacant.

@ Kenny
I feel for you. People here are not your enemy, nor you Audie.

I asked him the same questions I asked you. Did I treat you as my enemy? I didn't treat him that way either. As far as this test you put up, which of their beliefs did you request Atheists support?

Ken

Audie wrote:
Whether human behaviour came from evolution or a god, we are a flawed species, too smart for our own good, and behave very badly at times. What about human behaviour indicates that there is a god who showed the way?

Audie,

Could you possibly offer some clarity on the underlined part? If God exists, I can certainly understand how you can say we are a flawed species. But if God doesn't exist, and Godless evolution is true, how can you say we are a flawed species? If something is flawed, it is imperfect in some way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to know something is flawed or imperfect, there has to be something perfect to compare it to.