Evidence for God from Science

wayne wrote:I see the distinction, I do not see how it applies. True, what we actually DO may differ from we MIGHT HAVE done, but the only important thing is what it is that was we actually did. We only find out what we actually do when we in fact do it. God knows from the beginning what we are going to do.

Then this is the root of our problem. If I understood you correctly, you asked why God should let the entirety of time play out if He knows what we would have done. I answered that if He did not, then what we might have done never would have happened. There is a difference in what we did and what we would have done. Second of all, notice that I didn't ask for the difference between what we did and what we MIGHT HAVE done. I asked for the difference in what we DID and what we WOULD HAVE done.

If God cuts off the world and judges us based on what we WOULD HAVE DONE (had He not ended the world), then He is not judging us based on something that we actually did. That would be unjust. It doesn't matter if we were guaranteed to do it or not. What matters is that we DID NOT DO IT. You can't judge someone for something that they didn't do. And that answers your basic question.

So the whole purpose of our existence is to be tested - and the results of the test is known before we are even a "twinkle in our dad's eye"?

Test? No. Demonstrate? Yes.

Some people "play by the rules" to avoid retribution, whether by God, civil authority, or others (presumably more powerful than they). Some people "do the right thing" because it IS the right thing to do. The ratio of Christians to atheists are essentially the same in each group.

You didn't answer the question. I asked if you agreed or disagreed that people who "do good" under compulsion are acting less honorably than people who "do good" out of their free choice. Atheist or Christian, I don't care. Would you care to answer that question? I suspect it could help you quite a bit in understanding why God doesn't stop much of the evil in the world.

I know what your answer is. What I have never understood is how you equate the fact that The Bible changes over time with the idea that it (The Bible) constitutes God's statement of an absolute morality. I'm not especially talking about the OT/NT differences, I'm talking about differences in versions of the NT. Consider 1 Tim 6:1, the New International Version says ...

As someone who reads Greek and Hebrew, I can just tell you that it doesn't happen that way. Were I alive in 1611, I would have used the word "slavery." Today, I would use the word "servitude." It has nothing to do with a change in culture. It has everything to do with a change in vocabulary. Did you know, for example, that the word "conversation" does not have the same meaning today that it did a few hundred years ago?

But, to return to my question that you didn't bother to answer, "can you see that moral slavery--leaving us pure automatons--would be more "evil" than letting us have free choice (and the consequences that go with it)?"

Do you mean the term "evil" is based on God (I would dispute this)? In that case, substitute "heinous" for "evil". Or are you claiming a given act can only be "evil" (or "heinous", or "wrong", or ... ) given the existence of God? THAT I strongly disagree with.

I mean it in the sense that you strongly disagree with. Let's assume atheism for a minute. Let's take an act I'm sure you would regard to be evil (if you don't, rather than debating examples, please just give me an example of something you do consider evil and we will just use that): the rape of little girls.

If God does not exist, what makes that evil? I'm not asking why you don't like it. I'm not asking why it is a bad idea. I'm not asking why society rejects it. I'm asking what makes it morally wrong. Let me give you an example to clarify what I mean so that we can be sure that we are looking at the same thing.

Suppose I like chocolate ice cream, but you hate it. In fact, suppose that everyone on the planet hates it but me. Suppose, in fact, that I am the only person on the face of the planet who has ever like chocolate ice cream, and suppose, further, that every person who has every lived has actually hated it. Is it evil for me to eat it? Why not?

Returning to our example of raping little girls, what makes that act different from the act of eating an ice cream that you hate? I like one thing, you don't like it. What makes your opinion better than mine? You will, I'm sure, reply something to the effect about not hurting others. But you are just employing another personal value. Suppose I don't care about hurting others. What makes your hatred for hurting others and my enjoyment of it any different than your hatred for chocolate ice cream and my enjoyment of it? It's nothing more than personal, arbitrary values. Values, perhaps, that we may have inherited for evolutionary reasons, but they are only personal values nonetheless. They aren't truly evil or wrong.

So, again, I'll ask: what makes raping little girls (or whatever you think is evil) really evil? Please don't give me an answer about what you don't like (that isn't evil), what's good or bad for society (that isn't evil), or what harms others (that isn't evil). All those things are just your personal preferences. That you prefer things you like, that are good for society, and that don't harm others is great for you. That doesn't say anything beyond your personal tastes. I want an answer, without appealing to God, of how something can be REALLY EVIL apart from your personal value system.

I don't think He saved Hitler's life, my point was that if someone else (a televangelist, or a "saved" Christian perhaps) had survived the number and types of attempts on his or her life that Hitler did, it would probably be considered the result of God's intervention, if not an outright miracle.

People can be mistaken. Perhaps God did save the televangelist type, or perhaps it was just blind chance. I'm sure you would agree that God has the right to protect whomever He chooses? And I'm sure that you agree that we are capable of making mistakes in attributing salvation from death to God or to chance. Sometimes, we may think it was God when it was chance. Sometimes, we may think it was chance when it was God, yes? So I don't see how this is an issue one way or another.

Jac3510 wrote:

wayne wrote:I see the distinction, I do not see how it applies. True, what we actually DO may differ from we MIGHT HAVE done, but the only important thing is what it is that was we actually did. We only find out what we actually do when we in fact do it. God knows from the beginning what we are going to do.

Then this is the root of our problem. If I understood you correctly, you asked why God should let the entirety of time play out if He knows what we would have done. I answered that if He did not, then what we might have done never would have happened. There is a difference in what we did and what we would have done. Second of all, notice that I didn't ask for the difference between what we did and what we MIGHT HAVE done. I asked for the difference in what we DID and what we WOULD HAVE done.

If God is all-knowing, there is no difference between what He sees we might have done and what we actually do.

If God cuts off the world and judges us based on what we WOULD HAVE DONE (had He not ended the world), then He is not judging us based on something that we actually did. That would be unjust. It doesn't matter if we were guaranteed to do it or not. What matters is that we DID NOT DO IT. You can't judge someone for something that they didn't do. And that answers your basic question.

He makes the rules, the end result is the same, there is no court of appeals, there's no difference.

So the whole purpose of our existence is to be tested - and the results of the test is known before we are even a "twinkle in our dad's eye"?

Test? No. Demonstrate? Yes.

I don't need to re-watch a movie that I've seen before to prove to myself that I know the ending.

Some people "play by the rules" to avoid retribution, whether by God, civil authority, or others (presumably more powerful than they). Some people "do the right thing" because it IS the right thing to do. The ratio of Christians to atheists are essentially the same in each group.

You didn't answer the question. I asked if you agreed or disagreed that people who "do good" under compulsion are acting less honorably than people who "do good" out of their free choice. Atheist or Christian, I don't care. Would you care to answer that question? I suspect it could help you quite a bit in understanding why God doesn't stop much of the evil in the world.

IMO a person who "does good" under compulsion is acting "less honorably" than one who does the same "good deed" strictly because it is the "right thing to do".

I know what your answer is. What I have never understood is how you equate the fact that The Bible changes over time with the idea that it (The Bible) constitutes God's statement of an absolute morality. I'm not especially talking about the OT/NT differences, I'm talking about differences in versions of the NT. Consider 1 Tim 6:1, the New International Version says ...

As someone who reads Greek and Hebrew, I can just tell you that it doesn't happen that way. Were I alive in 1611, I would have used the word "slavery." Today, I would use the word "servitude." It has nothing to do with a change in culture.

So the "inerrant word of God" is subject to interpretation?

It has everything to do with a change in vocabulary. Did you know, for example, that the word "conversation" does not have the same meaning today that it did a few hundred years ago?

As does "intercourse", "gay", ...

But, to return to my question that you didn't bother to answer, "can you see that moral slavery--leaving us pure automatons--would be more "evil" than letting us have free choice (and the consequences that go with it)?"

Not really. How is it less "evil" than punishing a non-violent transgression (like not believing in the "right" God out of all the possible choices) by condemning the trangressor to an eternity in hell?

Do you mean the term "evil" is based on God (I would dispute this)? In that case, substitute "heinous" for "evil". Or are you claiming a given act can only be "evil" (or "heinous", or "wrong", or ... ) given the existence of God? THAT I strongly disagree with.

I mean it in the sense that you strongly disagree with. Let's assume atheism for a minute. Let's take an act I'm sure you would regard to be evil (if you don't, rather than debating examples, please just give me an example of something you do consider evil and we will just use that): the rape of little girls.

How about murder? There is little ambiguity there.

If God does not exist, what makes that evil? I'm not asking why you don't like it. I'm not asking why it is a bad idea. I'm not asking why society rejects it. I'm asking what makes it morally wrong. Let me give you an example to clarify what I mean so that we can be sure that we are looking at the same thing.

Suppose I like chocolate ice cream, but you hate it. In fact, suppose that everyone on the planet hates it but me. Suppose, in fact, that I am the only person on the face of the planet who has ever like chocolate ice cream, and suppose, further, that every person who has every lived has actually hated it. Is it evil for me to eat it? Why not?

The issue isn't if YOU like it or not, it's whether the person you murder likes it. Most people don't want to be killed, hence killing them is "wrong".

Returning to our example of raping little girls, what makes that act different from the act of eating an ice cream that you hate? I like one thing, you don't like it. What makes your opinion better than mine? You will, I'm sure, reply something to the effect about not hurting others. But you are just employing another personal value. Suppose I don't care about hurting others. What makes your hatred for hurting others and my enjoyment of it any different than your hatred for chocolate ice cream and my enjoyment of it? It's nothing more than personal, arbitrary values. Values, perhaps, that we may have inherited for evolutionary reasons, but they are only personal values nonetheless. They aren't truly evil or wrong.

So, again, I'll ask: what makes raping little girls (or whatever you think is evil) really evil? Please don't give me an answer about what you don't like (that isn't evil), what's good or bad for society (that isn't evil), or what harms others (that isn't evil). All those things are just your personal preferences. That you prefer things you like, that are good for society, and that don't harm others is great for you. That doesn't say anything beyond your personal tastes. I want an answer, without appealing to God, of how something can be REALLY EVIL apart from your personal value system.

Raping little girls (ie against their will) is "wrong" simply because it IS against their will.

For the grey areas (not involving direct harm to others - consensual homosexual acts for instance, polygamy, consensual sex with minors, or ... ), can you give definitive guidance that demonstrates God's word on the subjects? (ie independent of societal legalities)

I don't think He saved Hitler's life, my point was that if someone else (a televangelist, or a "saved" Christian perhaps) had survived the number and types of attempts on his or her life that Hitler did, it would probably be considered the result of God's intervention, if not an outright miracle.

People can be mistaken. Perhaps God did save the televangelist type, or perhaps it was just blind chance. I'm sure you would agree that God has the right to protect whomever He chooses? And I'm sure that you agree that we are capable of making mistakes in attributing salvation from death to God or to chance. Sometimes, we may think it was God when it was chance. Sometimes, we may think it was chance when it was God, yes? So I don't see how this is an issue one way or another.

Which is why a rational person asks for conclusive proof that it was reported accurately and couldn't have been chance (or other "normal" occurence) before claiming "a miracle".

Raping little girls (ie against their will) is "wrong" simply because it IS against their will.

Don't think that is going to cut it Wayne. Children are made to do things against there will all the time. Like, obey. Are you saying that children should never be made to do anything against their will?

So the "inerrant word of God" is subject to interpretation?

Any document can be translated and interpreted. Correctly or incorrectly.

How about murder? There is little ambiguity there.

Only because of the culture you are priveleged to live in. If you were born into a German, Nazi family and living in 1939, you might not think the murder of Jews was any big deal.

Most people don't want to be killed, hence killing them is "wrong".

It seems most driver's don't want to obey the speed limit. So the speed limit is wrong. Brilliant logic.

If God is all-knowing, there is no difference between what He sees we might have done and what we actually do.

There is a distinction you are missing. Knowledge of events (even if God) can be in one of three forms: potential, actual, or middle. Suppose you and I are playing a game of chess. As I survey your pieces, I see that you can move your knight to one of two places. Those two options represent the knight's potentiality. It is the potential to be here or there. I have knowledge of the knight's potentiality.

Now, suppose you move it here. You can no longer move it there. Thus, the knight's potentiality has been reduced to actuality. All temporal actuality (that is, an act that happens in time), is a reduction of potentiality. You can say that a potential move became an actual move. Having seen this, I now have knowledge of the actual.

Now, before we move to middle, I want to be sure the relationship between actual and potential is very clear. Once you have reduced the potentiality to actuality, my knowledge of the move's potentiality has not changed. I still know what you could have done. But my knowledge of the actuality is dependent on you. If you choose to move it here, I know that. I also know you did not move it there. If, though, you move it there, I know that instead, and also know that you did not move it here. Now, this is important: not only that, if you move it here, I CANNOT know that you moved it there, because that would be false. And if you move it there, I CANNOT know that you moved it here, because that would be false, too.

Let's add one more aspect to this before we introduce middle knowledge to make it still clearer. Suppose it is not me and you playing chess, but suppose it is you and Byblos playing. Suppose it was recorded, and I am watching the video. Again, I survey your pieces, and I see that you can move the knight here or there; thus, I have knowledge of your knight's potentiality. You move it there, and thus, I have knowledge of your knight's actuality as well. Now, suppose I rewind the tape and watch it again. I now have knowledge of both the knight's potentiality and actuality at the same time, prior to the event! But--and this is the really important part, wayne--my knowledge of your actuality is dependent on you actually having done it.

This is where middle knowledge comes into play.

Suppose you and Byblos are playing, and he sees the knight's potential moves, and sees that if you move it here, it would put him in checkmate in two moves. He obviously cannot allow that. So, he makes a move that prevents your knight from being placed there. He takes away that potentiality, forcing you, instead, to make some other move. This is an example of middle knowledge. Here, Byblos knew what you would have done, and he acted in response. He knew that you would have moved the knight here, and therefore, he did this. Thus, you did not move the knight here. The potentiality never actualized.

We use middle knowledge very day. "If I do this, they will do that." Or, "If I do this, that will happen."

So, again, one's knowledge of any given thing can either be potential, actual, or middle.

What you are describing, Wayne, is a scenario based on MIDDLE knowledge. If God were to end the world now, it is obviously true that He would still know what would have happened had He not (middle knowledge). But would would have happened is not the same as what DID happen. What DID happen would be knowledge of an actuality. This is why I kept making the distinction between something that would have vs. something that did happen.

Now, here's the ethical question. Can you be just and convict someone based on MIDDLE knowledge? I say no, and I'll give two examples, one biblical (since we are talking about the Christian God), and one secular.

1. Jesus said, "And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." (Matt 11:23) This is a clear example of Jesus' middle knowledge. If He had done the same miracles is Sodom that He did in Capernaum, they would have repented, and the city would have survived. This is an example of what WOULD HAVE happened. But notice that does not affect judgment. Judgment is based on what ACTUALLY happened, not what WOULD HAVE happened.

2. Several weeks ago, a seven NC men were arrested on charges of terrorism. They were found supplying intel to other terrorists to help plot an attack. Now, we have middle knowledge that, had the police not intervened, they WOULD HAVE killed people. But they ACTUALLY did not.

So, why are they not charged with murder, if that is what they WOULD HAVE done? Because they didn't do it. We stopped them. It would be wrong to charge them with a crime based on middle knowledge. We charge people for things that they actually do, not what they are planning to do. As it stands, the crimes they are charged with are based on something that they actually did: conspiracy to commit terrorist acts (and myriads of other things as well).

Now, in all this little philosophy of knowledge lesson we are going through, I am just trying to help you understand that in all beings--God included--knowledge is either potential, actual, or middle. It doesn't matter how perfect that knowledge is. It still falls into one of those three categories. Further, in all beings, God included, justice must be rendered based on the actual, not the potential. Thus, it is logically impossible for God to condemn someone based on what they would have done, which means it is logically impossible for Him to cut off the world so that bad things don't happen, and then condemn people for those bad things that they would have done.

That should take care of the "God makes the rules" and "I don't need to rewatch a movie to know its end" objections as well. Bottom line, Wayne: justice is based on actual knowledge, not middle knowledge.

IMO a person who "does good" under compulsion is acting "less honorably" than one who does the same "good deed" strictly because it is the "right thing to do".

Good, because you are right. Now, let me ask you another very simple question.

If God takes away my ability to do any evil at all, so that they ONLY "choice" I have is to do good, then has not the honorableness of my good choice just been diminished? In fact, is it not true that there is no longer any "choice" in the matter at all?

So the "inerrant word of God" is subject to interpretation?

No. The words we use to convey the ideas that are there change. Let's use your example of "gay" as a word whose meaning has changed. 100 years ago, I could have translated the word "happy" in the NT as "gay." Obviously, I can't do so today, not because the Word of God has changed, but because our understanding of human words have changed.

It is my job, as a translator, to find out what the idea of the words Paul (or whoever) used were in the day that he wrote, and then bring those ideas across to the people in my culture so that they will get the same idea. The words are not important. They are just signs. It is the ideas that are important, which are what the signs (words) point to. And by the word "idea" I don't mean some vague concept. I mean very specific ideas, relationships, etc.

Not really. How is it less "evil" than punishing a non-violent transgression (like not believing in the "right" God out of all the possible choices) by condemning the trangressor to an eternity in hell?

The justice of hell is another issue that I will gladly take up with you later. But this doesn't answer my question. Given your admission that a forced moral action is less honorable than a freely chosen moral action, would not God's FORCING of us to do nothing but good things--which would be tantamount to moral slavery--be in and of itself evil, being that it would be robbing us of free will? It would be turning you into a robot. I'm sure you can see that the God of the Bible is interested in having a relationship with us; but it is impossible to have a relationship with a robot. Thus, God is LOGICALLY FORCED to give us free will, which necessitates our ability to do evil.

The issue isn't if YOU like it or not, it's whether the person you murder likes it. Most people don't want to be killed, hence killing them is "wrong"

This is still subjective. I realize that you have a value system that says that we should not do to people what they don't want us to do to them. You seem to value human autonomy. Fine. But so what? Who cares what you like? Suppose I don't value that. Why should your moral values--valuing someone else's desires about their own selves--be forced on me? What makes you right and me wrong?

As an atheist, I'll suggest that logically, you are wrong in your value system. I'll suggest that since we only live once, and there is no hereafter, then there is no logical benefit to me withholding anything from myself that I desire. If I want something, and I can take it without consequences, I should do so. It would be EVIL of me to deny myself. And if taking something means I hurt someone else, who cares? That person is just going to die eventually anyway, like I will, and nothing will matter anyway. Survival of the fittest, baby. It's the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. I am strong enough to take with impunity, so it would be evil of me not to, even if it means taking your life to get it.

Again, I ask, what right do YOU have to tell me that my personal value system is wrong and yours is right? What makes you so much better than me? So much so, in fact, that I should change the way I view the world? Who are you to tell me that my love for chocolate ice cream is wrong and should be replaced with your love for vanilla ice cream?

jlay wrote:

Raping little girls (ie against their will) is "wrong" simply because it IS against their will.

Don't think that is going to cut it Wayne. Children are made to do things against there will all the time. Like, obey. Are you saying that children should never be made to do anything against their will?

Of course not. Rape is a violent act.

So the "inerrant word of God" is subject to interpretation?

Any document can be translated and interpreted. Correctly or incorrectly.

OK - We agree, The Bible is subject to interpretation by humans, and that interpretation is subject to error. So how is it then "the inerrant word of God"? Or at least, how can we discern which interpretation is THE word of God?

How about murder? There is little ambiguity there.

Only because of the culture you are priveleged to live in. If you were born into a German, Nazi family and living in 1939, you might not think the murder of Jews was any big deal.

I rather expect you'd think it a "big deal" if you were a Jew living in Nazi Germany. (Do unto others is judged from the perspective of the "doee" rather than the "doer").

Most people don't want to be killed, hence killing them is "wrong".

It seems most driver's don't want to obey the speed limit. So the speed limit is wrong. Brilliant logic.

The rightness or wrongness of an act isn't judged from the perspective of the person doing the act but from that of those affected by the act. Excessive speed, reckless driving, DUI, ... puts others at risk.

The real issue here isn't that a secular moral code is somewhat dependent upon cultural norms (ie age of consent wrt sexual activity, etc), but rather whether a religious moral code can be independent of cultural norms. As you correctly pointed out, any document, including The Bible, is subject to interpretation. Some interpretations may be incorrect, so how can you claim any moral code is dictated by God when the only documentation of that code is subject to faulty interpretation? ANY moral code is dependent upon the culture to which it applies.

Jac3510 wrote:

If God is all-knowing, there is no difference between what He sees we might have done and what we actually do.

There is a distinction you are missing. Knowledge of events (even if God) can be in one of three forms: potential, actual, or middle. Suppose you and I are playing a game of chess. As I survey your pieces, I see that you can move your knight to one of two places. Those two options represent the knight's potentiality. It is the potential to be here or there. I have knowledge of the knight's potentiality.

Now, suppose you move it here. You can no longer move it there. Thus, the knight's potentiality has been reduced to actuality. All temporal actuality (that is, an act that happens in time), is a reduction of potentiality. You can say that a potential move became an actual move. Having seen this, I now have knowledge of the actual.

Now, before we move to middle, I want to be sure the relationship between actual and potential is very clear. Once you have reduced the potentiality to actuality, my knowledge of the move's potentiality has not changed. I still know what you could have done. But my knowledge of the actuality is dependent on you. If you choose to move it here, I know that. I also know you did not move it there. If, though, you move it there, I know that instead, and also know that you did not move it here. Now, this is important: not only that, if you move it here, I CANNOT know that you moved it there, because that would be false. And if you move it there, I CANNOT know that you moved it here, because that would be false, too.

Let's add one more aspect to this before we introduce middle knowledge to make it still clearer. Suppose it is not me and you playing chess, but suppose it is you and Byblos playing. Suppose it was recorded, and I am watching the video. Again, I survey your pieces, and I see that you can move the knight here or there; thus, I have knowledge of your knight's potentiality. You move it there, and thus, I have knowledge of your knight's actuality as well. Now, suppose I rewind the tape and watch it again. I now have knowledge of both the knight's potentiality and actuality at the same time, prior to the event! But--and this is the really important part, wayne--my knowledge of your actuality is dependent on you actually having done it.

This is where middle knowledge comes into play.

Suppose you and Byblos are playing, and he sees the knight's potential moves, and sees that if you move it here, it would put him in checkmate in two moves. He obviously cannot allow that. So, he makes a move that prevents your knight from being placed there. He takes away that potentiality, forcing you, instead, to make some other move. This is an example of middle knowledge. Here, Byblos knew what you would have done, and he acted in response. He knew that you would have moved the knight here, and therefore, he did this. Thus, you did not move the knight here. The potentiality never actualized.

We use middle knowledge very day. "If I do this, they will do that." Or, "If I do this, that will happen."

So, again, one's knowledge of any given thing can either be potential, actual, or middle.

What you are describing, Wayne, is a scenario based on MIDDLE knowledge. If God were to end the world now, it is obviously true that He would still know what would have happened had He not (middle knowledge). But would would have happened is not the same as what DID happen. What DID happen would be knowledge of an actuality. This is why I kept making the distinction between something that would have vs. something that did happen.

Now, here's the ethical question. Can you be just and convict someone based on MIDDLE knowledge? I say no, and I'll give two examples, one biblical (since we are talking about the Christian God), and one secular.

1. Jesus said, "And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." (Matt 11:23) This is a clear example of Jesus' middle knowledge. If He had done the same miracles is Sodom that He did in Capernaum, they would have repented, and the city would have survived. This is an example of what WOULD HAVE happened. But notice that does not affect judgment. Judgment is based on what ACTUALLY happened, not what WOULD HAVE happened.

2. Several weeks ago, a seven NC men were arrested on charges of terrorism. They were found supplying intel to other terrorists to help plot an attack. Now, we have middle knowledge that, had the police not intervened, they WOULD HAVE killed people. But they ACTUALLY did not.

So, why are they not charged with murder, if that is what they WOULD HAVE done? Because they didn't do it. We stopped them. It would be wrong to charge them with a crime based on middle knowledge. We charge people for things that they actually do, not what they are planning to do. As it stands, the crimes they are charged with are based on something that they actually did: conspiracy to commit terrorist acts (and myriads of other things as well).

Now, in all this little philosophy of knowledge lesson we are going through, I am just trying to help you understand that in all beings--God included--knowledge is either potential, actual, or middle. It doesn't matter how perfect that knowledge is. It still falls into one of those three categories. Further, in all beings, God included, justice must be rendered based on the actual, not the potential. Thus, it is logically impossible for God to condemn someone based on what they would have done, which means it is logically impossible for Him to cut off the world so that bad things don't happen, and then condemn people for those bad things that they would have done.

That should take care of the "God makes the rules" and "I don't need to rewatch a movie to know its end" objections as well. Bottom line, Wayne: justice is based on actual knowledge, not middle knowledge.

I understand (and have understood) you point right along. Let's let this rest, at least until it becomes germane to the subject at hand.

IMO a person who "does good" under compulsion is acting "less honorably" than one who does the same "good deed" strictly because it is the "right thing to do".

Good, because you are right. Now, let me ask you another very simple question.

If God takes away my ability to do any evil at all, so that they ONLY "choice" I have is to do good, then has not the honorableness of my good choice just been diminished? In fact, is it not true that there is no longer any "choice" in the matter at all?

Of course.

So the "inerrant word of God" is subject to interpretation?

No. The words we use to convey the ideas that are there change. Let's use your example of "gay" as a word whose meaning has changed. 100 years ago, I could have translated the word "happy" in the NT as "gay." Obviously, I can't do so today, not because the Word of God has changed, but because our understanding of human words have changed.

It is my job, as a translator, to find out what the idea of the words Paul (or whoever) used were in the day that he wrote, and then bring those ideas across to the people in my culture so that they will get the same idea. The words are not important. They are just signs. It is the ideas that are important, which are what the signs (words) point to. And by the word "idea" I don't mean some vague concept. I mean very specific ideas, relationships, etc.

Quite right. So the "inerrant word of God" most people see is the translator's interpretation of the original text and his or her translation into the current language. Further, that translation is dependent upon society's current vocabulary and idiom at the time of the translation. Are you as a translator speaking for God? How do we non-translators ensure we are reading a God-approved translation? General question to any non-translators reading this thread - when was YOUR Bible translated?

Not really. How is it less "evil" than punishing a non-violent transgression (like not believing in the "right" God out of all the possible choices) by condemning the trangressor to an eternity in hell?

The justice of hell is another issue that I will gladly take up with you later.

Fine.

But this doesn't answer my question. Given your admission that a forced moral action is less honorable than a freely chosen moral action, would not God's FORCING of us to do nothing but good things--which would be tantamount to moral slavery--be in and of itself evil, being that it would be robbing us of free will? It would be turning you into a robot. I'm sure you can see that the God of the Bible is interested in having a relationship with us; but it is impossible to have a relationship with a robot. Thus, God is LOGICALLY FORCED to give us free will, which necessitates our ability to do evil.

I wouldn't call it "evil", but yes, it would be "robbing" us of some elements of free will.

Let me ask you a question - did the Holocaust directly affect God in any way? Was He harmed?

The issue isn't if YOU like it or not, it's whether the person you murder likes it. Most people don't want to be killed, hence killing them is "wrong"

This is still subjective. I realize that you have a value system that says that we should not do to people what they don't want us to do to them. You seem to value human autonomy. Fine. But so what? Who cares what you like? Suppose I don't value that. Why should your moral values--valuing someone else's desires about their own selves--be forced on me? What makes you right and me wrong?

I'm not saying my desires should imposed on you, or anyone else. I'm saying each of us should treat others with justice and respect, just as we would want to be treated.

As an atheist, I'll suggest that logically, you are wrong in your value system. I'll suggest that since we only live once, and there is no hereafter, then there is no logical benefit to me withholding anything from myself that I desire. If I want something, and I can take it without consequences, I should do so. It would be EVIL of me to deny myself. And if taking something means I hurt someone else, who cares? That person is just going to die eventually anyway, like I will, and nothing will matter anyway. Survival of the fittest, baby. It's the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. I am strong enough to take with impunity, so it would be evil of me not to, even if it means taking your life to get it.

What a cynic . All social animals live by a code of conduct that governs their societies interactions. Individuals who don't conform to the code of conduct are expelled from the group. Humans are social animals, so we live by a code of conduct. Some species have a hard-wired code of conduct. Ours is more fluid, varying between cultures and over time, but all cultures have a code of conduct, even non-theist cultures.

Again, I ask, what right do YOU have to tell me that my personal value system is wrong and yours is right? What makes you so much better than me? So much so, in fact, that I should change the way I view the world? Who are you to tell me that my love for chocolate ice cream is wrong and should be replaced with your love for vanilla ice cream?

YOU are trying to tell me that your value system is the only "correct" one.

I understand (and have understood) you point right along. Let's let this rest, at least until it becomes germane to the subject at hand.

It is perfectly germane. You are suggesting that God's foreknowledge means that the world doesn't have to exist. He could judge based on His middle knowledge. I am telling you that justice depends on actual knowledge, not middle knowledge. Actual knowledge, however, requires the world "play out" its existence. That answers your original question.

Of course.
.
.
I wouldn't call it "evil", but yes, it would be "robbing" us of some elements of free will.

Fine. So you agree. If God stops evil, then He is robbing us of some elements of free will, making our choices to do good less honorable. Thus, if God wants to allow us to make more honorable choices, He is logically constrained to allow us to do evil.

Let me ask you a question - did the Holocaust directly affect God in any way? Was He harmed?

Nope. God is impassible. He is not affected by human actions.

Quite right. So the "inerrant word of God" most people see is the translator's interpretation of the original text and his or her translation into the current language. Further, that translation is dependent upon society's current vocabulary and idiom at the time of the translation. Are you as a translator speaking for God? How do we non-translators ensure we are reading a God-approved translation? General question to any non-translators reading this thread - when was YOUR Bible translated?

Most people only see translations, which is a shame. In any case, most translations are rather good. I fully believe that the English Bible you have in your hand is only inspired to the extent that it accurately reflects what the original authors intended. When I translate the Bible, that is precisely what I try to do.

That's hardly a problem. Have you ever read a book translated from, say, German or French? If you don't read German or French, are you going to sit here and tell me that you have no idea what the original book said? Of course not. So it's a double standard to say that we therefore don't know what the Bible says if we don't read Greek or Hebrew. Again, as a translator, I can tell you that most modern translations are very good. You should learn to read Greek and Hebrew for yourself, because the wording comes more to life, but you also come to appreciate what the English is trying to do in a better way as well. But none of that means that you have the wrong idea from you English anymore than it does when you watch a movie with subtitles.

I'm not saying my desires should imposed on you, or anyone else. I'm saying each of us should treat others with justice and respect, just as we would want to be treated.

Of course you are. You desire that I treat other people with justice and respect. What if I don't desire that? What makes my actions wrong just because they don't match up to your personal value system?

What a cynic . All social animals live by a code of conduct that governs their societies interactions. Individuals who don't conform to the code of conduct are expelled from the group. Humans are social animals, so we live by a code of conduct. Some species have a hard-wired code of conduct. Ours is more fluid, varying between cultures and over time, but all cultures have a code of conduct, even non-theist cultures.

Your point? Just because humans are social creatures doesn't mean that I have to act like it. I am enlightened enough to throw off not only the superstition that God exists, but also the superstition that I ought to behave this way or that way. That's just something evolution taught me. I'm rational enough to see it's just an inherited idea that is no more true than the idea that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla.

Why should I care if I am cut off from society? And what if I can murder without being cut off? Perhaps I am a dictator like Stalin and can kill tens of millions with impunity. What should I care? Is that wrong? Why? Because YOU say so? Because YOUR morality is better than mine? Please. There is no God, there is no evil. There is no wrong. It's just you arrogantly thinking that your personal values are better than mine.

It's also interesting to note here that you really agree with me! You tell me that I ought to treat others with respect because of what I will get out of it. Funny. What happened to your noble idea of treating others with respect because we just ought to? What happened to that value? Turns out your "value" is just an empty, selfish desire to make your life better, hmm? Rather hypocritical, don't you think to accuse me of being a cynic when you secretly are one yourself.

YOU are trying to tell me that your value system is the only "correct" one.

As a Christian, of course I am. But as I Christian, I believe that God has given me the correct one. But atheists have no such grounding. So, speaking as an atheist, it is YOU, not me, who is imposing your morality on me. You have no right. It's just arrogance on your part to think that your value system is any better than mine. If I am an atheist, WHY SHOULD I CARE WHAT YOU VALUE? There is no objective reason.

If there is no God, there is no such thing as good or evil, right or wrong. The only thing there is is what you like and what you don't like. There is only preference. Nice of you to think that you have the right to impose your preferences on others. At least, as a Christian, I'm not imposing MY preferences. I believe in imposing GOD'S preferences. You would just have us all act according to your will.

Hi all,

Been out of town and returned today and I'll add a few cents worth after catching up
-
-
-

Jac3510 wrote:

Quite right. So the "inerrant word of God" most people see is the translator's interpretation of the original text and his or her translation into the current language. Further, that translation is dependent upon society's current vocabulary and idiom at the time of the translation. Are you as a translator speaking for God? How do we non-translators ensure we are reading a God-approved translation? General question to any non-translators reading this thread - when was YOUR Bible translated?

Most people only see translations, which is a shame. In any case, most translations are rather good. I fully believe that the English Bible you have in your hand is only inspired to the extent that it accurately reflects what the original authors intended. When I translate the Bible, that is precisely what I try to do.

That's hardly a problem. Have you ever read a book translated from, say, German or French? If you don't read German or French, are you going to sit here and tell me that you have no idea what the original book said? Of course not. So it's a double standard to say that we therefore don't know what the Bible says if we don't read Greek or Hebrew. Again, as a translator, I can tell you that most modern translations are very good. You should learn to read Greek and Hebrew for yourself, because the wording comes more to life, but you also come to appreciate what the English is trying to do in a better way as well. But none of that means that you have the wrong idea from you English anymore than it does when you watch a movie with subtitles.

The books translated from German or French don't claim to be "the inerrant word of God".

I'm not saying my desires should imposed on you, or anyone else. I'm saying each of us should treat others with justice and respect, just as we would want to be treated.

Of course you are. You desire that I treat other people with justice and respect. What if I don't desire that? What makes my actions wrong just because they don't match up to your personal value system?

Excuse me but I did no such thing! YOU are telling ME my value system is invalid.

What a cynic . All social animals live by a code of conduct that governs their societies interactions. Individuals who don't conform to the code of conduct are expelled from the group. Humans are social animals, so we live by a code of conduct. Some species have a hard-wired code of conduct. Ours is more fluid, varying between cultures and over time, but all cultures have a code of conduct, even non-theist cultures.

Your point? Just because humans are social creatures doesn't mean that I have to act like it. I am enlightened enough to throw off not only the superstition that God exists, but also the superstition that I ought to behave this way or that way. That's just something evolution taught me. I'm rational enough to see it's just an inherited idea that is no more true than the idea that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla.

Why should I care if I am cut off from society? And what if I can murder without being cut off? Perhaps I am a dictator like Stalin and can kill tens of millions with impunity. What should I care? Is that wrong? Why? Because YOU say so? Because YOUR morality is better than mine? Please. There is no God, there is no evil. There is no wrong. It's just you arrogantly thinking that your personal values are better than mine.

Most people would say it's wrong. Those that don't are generally called "sociopaths".

It's also interesting to note here that you really agree with me! You tell me that I ought to treat others with respect because of what I will get out of it. Funny. What happened to your noble idea of treating others with respect because we just ought to? What happened to that value?

I was describing MY value system. I've said NOTHING about yours. For what it's worth, I DO think we should treat others with respect because it is the right thing to do.

Turns out your "value" is just an empty, selfish desire to make your life better, hmm? Rather hypocritical, don't you think to accuse me of being a cynic when you secretly are one yourself.

First off the "cynic" comment was a joke - hence the emoticon. Secondly, what makes you think I'm a hypocrite?

YOU are trying to tell me that your value system is the only "correct" one.

As a Christian, of course I am. But as I Christian, I believe that God has given me the correct one. But atheists have no such grounding. So, speaking as an atheist, it is YOU, not me, who is imposing your morality on me. You have no right. It's just arrogance on your part to think that your value system is any better than mine. If I am an atheist, WHY SHOULD I CARE WHAT YOU VALUE? There is no objective reason.

You believe God gave you the correct one. Can you prove God endorsed your value system? If not, yours is no more valid than anyone else's. And again, I have not attempted to imposed my value system on anyone.

If there is no God, there is no such thing as good or evil, right or wrong. The only thing there is is what you like and what you don't like. There is only preference. Nice of you to think that you have the right to impose your preferences on others.

My preferences have no bearing, it is society's definition of "right" and "wrong" (aka "laws") that count. See also separation of church and state.

At least, as a Christian, I'm not imposing MY preferences. I believe in imposing GOD'S preferences. You would just have us all act according to your will.

This is a truly frightening statement - blind belief in personal knowledge of God's desires is the justification of many hate crimes. I'm not accusing you of hate crimes, but belief such as you describe can be taken to that extreme. This is one of the reasons for the separation of church and state.

The books translated from German or French don't claim to be "the inerrant word of God".

Do you believe that a German author can state something and that English people can understand what he was trying to say if they have access to good translations? If so, why should we think any less of Greek or Hebrew translations?

Excuse me but I did no such thing! YOU are telling ME my value system is invalid.

Of course you did. Remember the statement you made that set off this entire discussion. You said that something could be objectively wrong if God does not exist. When I pressed you on what makes something really wrong, you said that something is wrong if it does something to someone that they don't want done (a negative version of the Golden Rule).

Now, why shouldn't I do something just because somebody doesn't want me to? Why should I respect human life? Because you value it? What if I don't? You can say I'm wrong, but my question to you is WHO SAYS?

Look, you say human life is to be valued above all. I say self-gratification is to be valued above all. What makes you right and me wrong? What gives YOU the right to tell someone that they can't practice their value system just because it conflicts with YOURS? Who do you think you are?

Most people would say it's wrong. Those that don't are generally called "sociopaths".

So majority rules decides morality? What if the majority thinks that it is right to murder all blacks? Will that then become the moral thing to do?

I was describing MY value system. I've said NOTHING about yours. For what it's worth, I DO think we should treat others with respect because it is the right thing to do.

Wrong. You said my system was wrong because I ought not murder people. Why shouldn't I murder people? Because it violates YOUR value system. But it doesn't violate mine. It fulfills mine. So why should I adhere to YOUR value system when MINE tells me not to? Why should I do what YOU tell me to do when I would rather do something else?

Secondly, the reason I made the comment about you agreeing with me was that you appealed to the common good of all as a personal benefit to me. If I treat people with respect, it will make my life easier. But then, you really don't believe that we should respect human life because human life is inherently worthwhile. We should respect human life because it makes our own lives easier. Thus, you really do just have a moral system based on self-gratification.

So, in that case, suppose I am a dictator like Stalin. If murdering people is going to bring me more gratification in every way, then why shouldn't I do so?

Secondly, what makes you think I'm a hypocrite?

Because you tell me that you believe that we ought not do things to people they don't want for their sake, but then you turn around and say that REALLY the reason we ought not is because it makes it easier for me to be accepted by society, which means it isn't really for their sake, but for mine. That's hypocritical, or at least inconsistent.

You believe God gave you the correct one. Can you prove God endorsed your value system? If not, yours is no more valid than anyone else's. And again, I have not attempted to imposed my value system on anyone.

1) I can. It's called the resurrection.
2) I can. It's called objective moral values. That is what we are discussing here.
3) Your question is invalid anyway. Proving God endorsed a value system and God endorsing a value system are different things. If I couldn't, would that mean that He did or did not? If He did, and I couldn't prove it, would that mean that I am wrong? Suppose, for example, I refuse to believe Einstein's theories. Suppose you haven't taken the math to be able to prove it to me on paper. Does that mean that his theories, then, aren't true?
4) Your question is invalid for a second reason. I don't have to prove anything. I have to provide evidence for it so that I have sufficient reason to believe it. I'm sure you have presented arguments to people before that you thought were conclusive and they simply refused to accept your conclusions. You had evidence--you even considered it proof--but they didn't bite. Does that mean you aren't justified in holding to the idea just because you couldn't convince the person you are right?

Reality doesn't depend on if you can prove something to someone else. It is what it is. What I am telling is that morality is objective, and the objective morality that is endorsed by God is the one I am telling you above. Just because you refuse to accept that doesn't make it any less true. It either means that I am incapable of giving you a reasonable explanation, or it means that you are being willfully obstinate. One of the two.

My preferences have no bearing, it is society's definition of "right" and "wrong" (aka "laws") that count. See also separation of church and state.

You are so inconsistent, wayne.

First, things were wrong because they violated the golden rule.
Then, things were wrong because they would ultimately harm me in the end by expelling me from society.
Now, things are wrong because society says so.

To the first, what makes the Golden Rule any more valid that "might makes right"? Why should I care about others?
To the second, what if I have the pure power to do harm to others without being expelled from society? Why shouldn't I do things you consider wrong, then?
To the third, what if society decides to make slavery permissible? Does that make it right?

I also love the hypocrisy of your appeal to the separation of church and state. I'm not allowed to set laws based on my personal values that come out of the Bible, but you are allowed to make laws based on your personal value system based on your own preferences, in your case, a preference that we respect human life. But you would tell someone who doesn't have that preference that they are wrong. That's arrogant.

This is a truly frightening statement - blind belief in personal knowledge of God's desires is the justification of many hate crimes. I'm not accusing you of hate crimes, but belief such as you describe can be taken to that extreme. This is one of the reasons for the separation of church and state.

It's no different than the statement than you are making. Blind belief that your personal value system should be followed. Do you want to compare the virtues of atheism with Christianity? Atheistic regimes have killed hundreds of millions of people more than all the religious wars combined, and that in only once century. Why? Because they have a different personal value system.

For all your talk about believing in right and wrong, wayne, you are being remarkably inconsistent. You tell me that right and wrong can exist apart from your personal preferences, but then you base right and wrong on your own preference. YOU BELIEVE that we should respect life. You VALUE the respect of human life. But what you are refusing to answer is the question as to what makes that right? What do you say to someone who disagrees with your value system? What makes you right and them wrong? That it is good for society? So what? That's just another personal value of yours. That it is good for them in the long run? That's self-defeating, because then you are saying you should only do good for others because it is best for you, but then when I ask you why I shouldn't hurt someone if it is good for me, you say I shouldn't because it is bad for others.

You have to admit that outside of a higher being, there is no objective grounding for right and wrong. It is all a matter of personal preference. Murder isn't wrong. It just violates society's collective preference.

Jac3510 wrote:

Excuse me but I did no such thing! YOU are telling ME my value system is invalid.

Of course you did. Remember the statement you made that set off this entire discussion. You said that something could be objectively wrong if God does not exist. When I pressed you on what makes something really wrong, you said that something is wrong if it does something to someone that they don't want done (a negative version of the Golden Rule).

You were asking on what I based MY value system. I said NOTHING about yours!

Now, why shouldn't I do something just because somebody doesn't want me to? Why should I respect human life? Because you value it? What if I don't? You can say I'm wrong, but my question to you is WHO SAYS?

First off, that isn't what I said. The root of my value system IS the Golden Rule. I strive to treat others as I would like to be treated.

Look, you say human life is to be valued above all. I say self-gratification is to be valued above all. What makes you right and me wrong? What gives YOU the right to tell someone that they can't practice their value system just because it conflicts with YOURS? Who do you think you are?

Nothing gives me that right. And I didn't tell you (or anyone) they can't practice their value system.

Most people would say it's wrong. Those that don't are generally called "sociopaths".

So majority rules decides morality? What if the majority thinks that it is right to murder all blacks? Will that then become the moral thing to do?

It wasn't that long ago that discriminating against (and even murdering) blacks WAS tolerated in certain parts of the country. My value system lead me to participate in a number of civil-rights demonstrations long before that was "the thing to do". Frankly, the fact that many Christian clergy actively supported the (then) stautus quo and preached against us had a lot to do with my doubts about organized religion.

I was describing MY value system. I've said NOTHING about yours. For what it's worth, I DO think we should treat others with respect because it is "the right thing to do".

Wrong. You said my system was wrong because I ought not murder people. Why shouldn't I murder people? Because it violates YOUR value system. But it doesn't violate mine. It fulfills mine. So why should I adhere to YOUR value system when MINE tells me not to? Why should I do what YOU tell me to do when I would rather do something else?

This is how a good Christian thinks? (<= note emoticon it means that was a joke) If you were to murder someone, I would consider your ACTIONS immoral and criminal, and would do everything in my power to bring you to justice.

Secondly, the reason I made the comment about you agreeing with me was that you appealed to the common good of all as a personal benefit to me. If I treat people with respect, it will make my life easier. But then, you really don't believe that we should respect human life because human life is inherently worthwhile. We should respect human life because it makes our own lives easier. Thus, you really do just have a moral system based on self-gratification.

If we ALL treat each other with respect and justice, it makes life easier for us ALL. When I come to a queue of people, I join the line at the end rather than attempting to "cut in" ahead of others. Why? Because it is the respectful and just thing to do.

So, in that case, suppose I am a dictator like Stalin. If murdering people is going to bring me more gratification in every way, then why shouldn't I do so?

I've answered a number of similar questions - why don't you answer this one?

Secondly, what makes you think I'm a hypocrite?

Because you tell me that you believe that we ought not do things to people they don't want for their sake, but then you turn around and say that REALLY the reason we ought not is because it makes it easier for me to be accepted by society, which means it isn't really for their sake, but for mine. That's hypocritical, or at least inconsistent.

Could you quote the portion of my post you are referring to - I have no idea where you got this.

You believe God gave you the correct one. Can you prove God endorsed your value system? If not, yours is no more valid than anyone else's. And again, I have not attempted to imposed my value system on anyone.

1) I can. It's called the resurrection.

Even The Bible is not consistent in its descriptions of the resurrection. YOU may find it to be compelling evidence, many others do not.

2) I can. It's called objective moral values. That is what we are discussing here.

You claim objective morality exists because of God - fine. But you can't then turn around and claim the existence of objective morality as proof of God's existence. That's circular logic.

3) Your question is invalid anyway. Proving God endorsed a value system and God endorsing a value system are different things. If I couldn't, would that mean that He did or did not? If He did, and I couldn't prove it, would that mean that I am wrong? Suppose, for example, I refuse to believe Einstein's theories. Suppose you haven't taken the math to be able to prove it to me on paper. Does that mean that his theories, then, aren't true?

What I said was that your value system was no more valid than anyone else's unless you could prove that God endorsed your value system. Neither of your "proofs" even addressed the bona fides of your value system. So I remain unconvinced that your value system is any better than mine. And yet again, I am making no statements about your value system beyond that it is not demonstrably better than mine.

4) Your question is invalid for a second reason. I don't have to prove anything. I have to provide evidence for it so that I have sufficient reason to believe it. I'm sure you have presented arguments to people before that you thought were conclusive and they simply refused to accept your conclusions. You had evidence--you even considered it proof--but they didn't bite. Does that mean you aren't justified in holding to the idea just because you couldn't convince the person you are right?

And yet again, I have said nothing that said anything about your value system (if a portion of my posts gave that impression, please quote it so we can resolve this issue).

Reality doesn't depend on if you can prove something to someone else. It is what it is. What I am telling is that morality is objective, and the objective morality that is endorsed by God is the one I am telling you above. Just because you refuse to accept that doesn't make it any less true. It either means that I am incapable of giving you a reasonable explanation, or it means that you are being willfully obstinate. One of the two.

If there is an objective morality, why does it change over time?

My preferences have no bearing, it is society's definition of "right" and "wrong" (aka "laws") that count. See also separation of church and state.

You are so inconsistent, wayne.

First, things were wrong because they violated the golden rule.

The Golden Rule is the basis of my value system.

Then, things were wrong because they would ultimately harm me in the end by expelling me from society.

That was dredged out of a post explaining why it is necessary for social animals to have rules of conduct in order to maintain their societies.

Now, things are wrong because society says so.

Our society documents the code of conduct we should live by (aka "laws").

To the first, what makes the Golden Rule any more valid that "might makes right"? Why should I care about others?

It's the basis of MY values. I never claimed it was "righter" than any other.

To the second, what if I have the pure power to do harm to others without being expelled from society? Why shouldn't I do things you consider wrong, then?

For most species power is an overriding element of the code of conduct. Most human societies have more complex codes.

To the third, what if society decides to make slavery permissible? Does that make it right?

At one time, slavery WAS permissible. And it WAS legal. And it WAS "moral" (see The Bible).

I also love the hypocrisy of your appeal to the separation of church and state. I'm not allowed to set laws based on my personal values that come out of the Bible, but you are allowed to make laws based on your personal value system based on your own preferences, in your case, a preference that we respect human life. But you would tell someone who doesn't have that preference that they are wrong. That's arrogant.

I never said anything against abortion. I did ask a few questions to see what people thought and made a suggestion or two to try to help make the pro-life point of view more understandable. I DO support equal rights for homosexuals - because you (collectively) consider it sinful, does not give you the right to discriminate against them. What if someone claimed that religion should be banned (or that the only religion allowed was Islam? How would YOU feel?

This is a truly frightening statement - blind belief in personal knowledge of God's desires is the justification of many hate crimes. I'm not accusing you of hate crimes, but belief such as you describe can be taken to that extreme. This is one of the reasons for the separation of church and state.

It's no different than the statement than you are making. Blind belief that your personal value system should be followed. Do you want to compare the virtues of atheism with Christianity? Atheistic regimes have killed hundreds of millions of people more than all the religious wars combined, and that in only once century. Why? Because they have a different personal value system.

And again, I'm NOT trying to impose my beliefs or vales on anyone, I'm objecting to you (collective) claiming they are invalid.

Just out of curiosity, to what "atheistic" regimes are you referring?

For all your talk about believing in right and wrong, wayne, you are being remarkably inconsistent. You tell me that right and wrong can exist apart from your personal preferences, but then you base right and wrong on your own preference. YOU BELIEVE that we should respect life. You VALUE the respect of human life. But what you are refusing to answer is the question as to what makes that right? What do you say to someone who disagrees with your value system? What makes you right and them wrong? That it is good for society? So what? That's just another personal value of yours. That it is good for them in the long run? That's self-defeating, because then you are saying you should only do good for others because it is best for you, but then when I ask you why I shouldn't hurt someone if it is good for me, you say I shouldn't because it is bad for others.

I think this has been answered several times in this post already.

You have to admit that outside of a higher being, there is no objective grounding for right and wrong. It is all a matter of personal preference. Murder isn't wrong. It just violates society's collective preference.

And I believe there is, which I've tried to explain.

Too many individual statements to respond to one at a time, Wayne. Let me try it this way.

I said that right and wrong do not exist if God does not exist. You disagreed. You think that right and wrong can exist if God does not exist. This is what I am disputing. So let me clarify the terms. I am not interested in ABSOLUTE right and wrong. That is something that everyone agrees with or disagrees with. Evolution and human society can perfectly well account for absolute morality. We all agree murder is wrong because we all have been taught it. Fine. That's NOT my claim.

My claim relates to OBJECTIVE morality. You keep saying that murder is wrong. If I choose to murder, you are saying that I am WRONG. If I say, "Murder is right and good," are you going to reply, "Well that may be true for you, but nor for me"? If so, then you don't agree that right and wrong REALLY exist in any objective sense. You just think it is a matter of sheer personal preference.

If, though, you say that I am WRONG in my assertion, then you are saying that I am MISTAKEN. I have made a false assertion. I think as, "On what objective basis is murder wrong?" You cannot answer with anything relating to personal preference, when is exactly what your Golden Rule is. What can you point to that says that murder is WRONG beyond what YOU LIKE?

If God doesn't exist, then you can't point to anything like that. If God doesn't exist, then I simply prefer murder and you simply prefer not-murder. There's nothing more "right" or "wrong" about this than our preference for ice cream flavors.

Perhaps the entire problem is that I was unclear and you thought that I was arguing for absolute morality. I'm not. I'm arguing for objective morality. Things are right and wrong in and of themselves, and a person who thinks that things are right that are really wrong or wrong that are really right is just as wrong as a person who thinks that the capital of the USA is Atlanta. You CANNOT have morality exist in and of itself if you do not have God. It is logically impossible. Atheists have recognized this for centuries.

Face it. Under your atheism, there is no such thing as morality in any objective sense. Your preference for the Golden Rule is no more valid than your preference for ice cream. You have NO BASIS on which to tell someone that slavery was wrong. You can tell them that you don't prefer it. You can tell them you don't like it. You have no basis on which to tell someone that murder is wrong. You can tell them that you don't prefer or like it. It may be something you wouldn't practice yourself, but there is nothing WRONG about it. When you say, "Murder is wrong," all you are saying is, "Murder is an act I don't like because it doesn't match with my personal value system based on the Golden Rule." But what effect does YOUR value system have on anyone else?

Answer: none. Your value system says nothing about anyone else's. So you don't have the right to oppose slavery or murder or rape or torture, unless, of course, you want to FORCE your morality on someone else.

But, Wayne, you DO believe in objective morality. You DO believe that murder REALLY IS WRONG. It isn't just a personal belief. It REALLY IS WRONG. People who murder really are WRONG. You know that. Slavery really was WRONG. You know that. It isn't just preference. It is an objective FACT, just like your height or the number of marbles in a jar. But since objective morality is real, the a Moral God must exist. It's irrefutable.

So you can either recognize that a Moral God does exist, or you can stop saying that murder is wrong. You can stop saying that ANYTHING is wrong and recognize that all attempts at "justice" are only attempts to FORCE or moral view on other people for the simple reason that justice doesn't really exist. You can't have it both ways. You can't have morality without God. You can live like it, sure. But you are just being intellectually dishonest, and if I may say so, I'm willing to bet that you believe that dishonesty is wrong . . .

BTW, the USSR and China are two examples of godless regimes.

Let me close with one real life quote from a torturer: " 'I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart." Surely, you find such a sentiment repugnant. But, Wayne, beyond your personal dislike for such a statement, what can you say is wrong about it? Nothing. How can you tell him that he should NOT live this way? You can't. There is no logical basis to do so.

If you believe in God, you have a logical basis for it, though. You can say that he is wrong (which in your heart you know is true) in an objective sense because God has built an objective morality into the fabric of reality that is just as easy to perceive as height, width, depth, and weight. It is wrong because it is inconsistent with the nature of God. In short, it is wrong because it breaks the Moral Law.

I can condemn this torturer. You can't. I can say he's wrong. All you can say is that he is behaving in a way that you don't like.

Jac3510 wrote:Too many individual statements to respond to one at a time, Wayne. Let me try it this way.

I said that right and wrong do not exist if God does not exist. You disagreed. You think that right and wrong can exist if God does not exist. This is what I am disputing. So let me clarify the terms. I am not interested in ABSOLUTE right and wrong. That is something that everyone agrees with or disagrees with. Evolution and human society can perfectly well account for absolute morality. We all agree murder is wrong because we all have been taught it. Fine. That's NOT my claim.

My claim relates to OBJECTIVE morality.

How about defining objective morality for me.

You keep saying that murder is wrong. If I choose to murder, you are saying that I am WRONG. If I say, "Murder is right and good," are you going to reply, "Well that may be true for you, but nor for me"? If so, then you don't agree that right and wrong REALLY exist in any objective sense. You just think it is a matter of sheer personal preference.

Didn't you use murder as an example of absolute morality?

If, though, you say that I am WRONG in my assertion, then you are saying that I am MISTAKEN. I have made a false assertion. I think as, "On what objective basis is murder wrong?" You cannot answer with anything relating to personal preference, when is exactly what your Golden Rule is. What can you point to that says that murder is WRONG beyond what YOU LIKE?

Would you like to edit this so it makes sense?

What can you point to that says that murder is WRONG beyond what YOU LIKE?

Society's laws.

If God doesn't exist, then you can't point to anything like that. If God doesn't exist, then I simply prefer murder and you simply prefer not-murder. There's nothing more "right" or "wrong" about this than our preference for ice cream flavors.

Asked and answered.

Perhaps the entire problem is that I was unclear and you thought that I was arguing for absolute morality. I'm not. I'm arguing for objective morality. Things are right and wrong in and of themselves, and a person who thinks that things are right that are really wrong or wrong that are really right is just as wrong as a person who thinks that the capital of the USA is Atlanta. You CANNOT have morality exist in and of itself if you do not have God. It is logically impossible. Atheists have recognized this for centuries.

Why so?

Face it. Under your atheism, there is no such thing as morality in any objective sense. Your preference for the Golden Rule is no more valid than your preference for ice cream. You have NO BASIS on which to tell someone that slavery was wrong. You can tell them that you don't prefer it. You can tell them you don't like it. You have no basis on which to tell someone that murder is wrong. You can tell them that you don't prefer or like it. It may be something you wouldn't practice yourself, but there is nothing WRONG about it. When you say, "Murder is wrong," all you are saying is, "Murder is an act I don't like because it doesn't match with my personal value system based on the Golden Rule." But what effect does YOUR value system have on anyone else?

What effect does YOUR value system have on anyone else?

Answer: none. Your value system says nothing about anyone else's. So you don't have the right to oppose slavery or murder or rape or torture, unless, of course, you want to FORCE your morality on someone else.

How is this any different under your value system? ... and you ARE trying to force your morality on others.

But, Wayne, you DO believe in objective morality. You DO believe that murder REALLY IS WRONG. It isn't just a personal belief. It REALLY IS WRONG. People who murder really are WRONG. You know that. Slavery really was WRONG. You know that. It isn't just preference. It is an objective FACT, just like your height or the number of marbles in a jar. But since objective morality is real, the a Moral God must exist. It's irrefutable.

Why is "objective morality" real?

So you can either recognize that a Moral God does exist, or you can stop saying that murder is wrong. You can stop saying that ANYTHING is wrong and recognize that all attempts at "justice" are only attempts to FORCE or moral view on other people for the simple reason that justice doesn't really exist. You can't have it both ways. You can't have morality without God. You can live like it, sure. But you are just being intellectually dishonest, and if I may say so, I'm willing to bet that you believe that dishonesty is wrong . . .

If morality is defined by God why has what is "right" and "wrong" changed over time? Did God change His mind?

BTW, the USSR and China are two examples of godless regimes.

The murders they committed weren't perpetrated in the name of atheism, they were the result of a corrupt regime. Some theistic regimes use religion as a weapon to incite and "justify" murders and torture (inquisition, radical Islam, ... ).

Let me close with one real life quote from a torturer: " 'I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart." Surely, you find such a sentiment repugnant. But, Wayne, beyond your personal dislike for such a statement, what can you say is wrong about it? Nothing. How can you tell him that he should NOT live this way? You can't. There is no logical basis to do so.

Sure I can tell him. I doubt that my telling him will stop him.
You can also tell him. Do you really think doing so have any more effect?

If you believe in God, you have a logical basis for it, though. You can say that he is wrong (which in your heart you know is true) in an objective sense because God has built an objective morality into the fabric of reality that is just as easy to perceive as height, width, depth, and weight. It is wrong because it is inconsistent with the nature of God. In short, it is wrong because it breaks the Moral Law.

I can condemn this torturer. You can't. I can say he's wrong. All you can say is that he is behaving in a way that you don't like.

Either of us can condemn him. The effect on him will be the same regardless of which of us condemns him. If God does define a specific morality, shouldn't He be responsible for enforcing it? Why does He need to rely on "helpers" to tell us what he meant to say.

In a nutshell, you you seem to believe man is incapable of developing a viable code of conduct and thus our code must have come from God (please correct me if I'm reading you wrong). I believe our codes of conduct (and there are many, each culture has a variation, and most have changed over time) originated from the primitive but effective codes that are necessary to keep any group of social animals together and functioning for the common good. Human intelligence and adaptability have allowed us to refine our codes over time.

If God had defined morality, it seems to me that He could have done so on the first try - in other words a God-based morality should be constant throughout time and across cultures. On the other hand, if morality was defined by man, it would most likely vary between cultures and each culture would tend to refine their morality over time.

Which hypothesis seems to fit reality more closely?

This is a great discussion and I would add these lines for food for thought for Waynepii...

If Morality is based on social and cultural norms then why not have God interject a true code to base and judge morality on so that an objective standard is established that avoids the swaying norms posed by human beings?

Social and cultural norms sway due to public and political opinions and are not an absolute standard in which to base morality on. Hitler's Germany of the 1930's is an extreme example of this.

God did interject 10 Commandments in which to base Human Morality on. These provide an absolute standard for human morality and change not. Jesus later summed up one - to love God and your neighbor that fulfills the requirements for human morality to be based upon.

God set up an absolute Moral Standard for Humanity in which humanity can base a standard for what makes absolute morals - moral. We fail all of these because we cannot keep any of these for very long. So Waynepii, is your love perfect? Does any of your standards for morality fall under the category of the ones God set for humanity? How many times have you failed these standards?

It is easy to live by social and cultural based morality. We can change them to avoid condemnation for not living up to these as it is we who make the rules. However, when God makes the rules, they do not change and we cannot hide. You and I cannot live up to the absolute standards of morality imposed by God to humanity as their purpose was to reveal sin within us (lack of absolute Moral's to put it another way) and drive us back to God for his help. That is the test...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:This is a great duscussion and I would add these lines for food for thought for Waynepii...

If Morality is based on social and cultural norms then why not have God interject a true code to base and judge morality on so that an objective standard is established that avoids the swaying norms posed by human beings?

Social and cultural norms sway due to public and political opinions and are not an absolute standard in which to base morality on. Hitler's Germany of the 1930's is an extreme example of this.

God did interject 10 Commandments in which to base Human Morality on. These provide an absolute standard for human morality and change not. Jesus later summed up one - to love God and your neighbor that fulfills the requirments for human morality to be based upon.

You mean these?

"And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God…

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

They don't seem very definitive hitting a few obvious highlights but leaving many concerns of contemporary Christians completely unaddressed, such as homosexuality, fornication, general dishonesty (as opposed to bearing false witness about others), torture, and many others. They also doesn't address some issues that were once a problem but which society has since largely resolved such as slavery.

God set up an absulute Moral Standard for Humaity in which humanity can base a standard for what makes absoute morals - moral. We fail all of these because we cannot keep any of these for very long. So Waynepii, is your love perfect? Does any of your standards for morality fall under the catogory of the ones God set for humanity? How many times have you failed these standards?

If the 10 commandments are the basis for absolute morality, there's a whole left to be addressed by society.

It is easy to live by social and cultural based morality. We can change them to avoid condemnation for not living up to these as it is we who make the rules. However, when God makes the rules, they do not change and we cannot hide. You and I cannot live up to the absolute standards of morality imposed by God to humanity as their purpose was to reveal sin within us (lack of absolute Moral's to put it another way) and drive us back to God for his help. That is the test...

That was my point in my previous post, it seems that God's morality should be constant. The fact that morality varies between cultures and over time makes me question where God fits in. For example, God's "written word" (The Bible) is at best accepting of slavery, most contemporary societies have totally rejected slavery.