Evidence for God from Science

hatsoff wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Zoegirl wrote, and I quote: "You bring up God as being a morality bully...." (underline mine)

Except that I didn't bring it up. Rather---as I said in my previous post---she said that I made society out to be a morality bully, and I replied that divine moral law is even more autocratic than social mores. I am not accusing God of immorality.

Goodness is always going to be a stricter law to abide by.. (Deuteronomy 25:13-16) To date, no one has reached that plateau of perfection save Christ. In hindsight it could be argued that societies laws are more autocratic than God's. If you were convicted of breaking the law, how many people do you know who would pay your bill? If you murdered someone, how many people do you know who would forgive you or take your place in a death penalty?

On top of that, Christ summed up the law into two great commandments..

Matthew 22:34-40

34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

So how are God's laws or His divine moral law more autocratic than social mores?

What's your beef with loving your neighbor as yourself or loving a God who promotes love?

Kurieuo wrote:I am perplexed. If God still has the freedom and can condemn Hitchens, then how exactly has Hitchens denied God such freedom?

First of all, let's not overlook the fact that Hitchens does care deeply about this issue, so it would be a mistake to say that Hitchens' opinions are without value or meaningless. Second, you seem to have answered your own question by distinguishing between a denial of freedom and enforceability of that denial. So, Hitchens doesn't physically deny God any freedoms; rather, he denies God the freedom to condemn him in principle.

Moreover, in order for Hitchens to deny God anything (leaving enforceability aside), the right to deny must be his.

But this is clearly not so. As I have already stated, we do not require rights in order to act, or to formulate our own opinions or principles. Just as God doesn't need the right to condemn Hitchens in order to actually condemn him, neither does Hitchens need the right to deny God that freedom in order to express his own principles.

hatsoff wrote:

Moreover, in order for Hitchens to deny God anything (leaving enforceability aside), the right to deny must be his.

But this is clearly not so. As I have already stated, we do not require rights in order to act, or to formulate our own opinions or principles. Just as God doesn't need the right to condemn Hitchens in order to actually condemn him, neither does Hitchens need the right to deny God that freedom in order to express his own principles.

If God exists, who endowed Hitchens with the faculties and priviledge of being able to express his own opinions and other such freedoms?

Anyway, I'm not sure what I am really debating now. God encourages such freedoms of expressions. His restraint from interfering with our world to let humanity play out their freedoms, affords people the opportunity to fully deny Him without His imposing upon people. Likewise, it affords people the opportunity to seek God out/be allured to Him and credit to God what appears to many as His obvious handiwork. Perfect world for God to see who are His don't you think?

Kurieuo wrote:Anyway, I'm not sure what I am really debating now.

Hey, that could be a problem! Allow me to recap the current line of discussion:

Gman wrote:Once you believe that Darwin evolution as the ultimate source of truth and you get rid of God, there is no definition of good, the rationale for good is gone

hatsoff wrote:I have found in my personal experience that moral reasons and prudential reasons are almost always in harmony.

zoegirl wrote:Bottomline, there is nothing inherently right or wrong about killing, fighting, stealing, deception, rape, greed, lust according to the evolutionary model alone....they are *arbitrary* labels of right and wrong that are simply the result of current evolutionary success.

We are nothing less than morality bullies, declaring those that engage in behavior that their genes dictate to be social outcasts....

hatsoff wrote:"inherent" rightness or wrongness is an unintelligible concept. The existence of God doesn't change that, by the way. ...the Biblical God, if he exists, is the same sort of moral autocrat

zoegirl wrote:Let's just clarify this. You are agreeing that there is nothing right or wrong about rape and murder other than the fact that we have, as a society, declared it to be so?

hatsoff wrote:Close... Morality only makes sense with respect to a particular moral code or a collection of codes. They can be laid down by anyone---including but not limited to society. So, if God exists, then he can give us a code of conduct, and that divine moral code will define morality in a certain context. Similarly, a society can define a moral context by its majority opinions. Individual people can single-handedly lay the foundations for their own moral codes, e.g. Kant's categorical imperative or Siddhartha Gautama's eightfold path.

zoegirl wrote:If He *doesn't* exist, what gives *you* or the rest of society to declare someone else's morality to be right, other than your own thinking declares it to be so. (and if thinking is how we derive our conclusions, then we can hardly condemn the murderer or rapist his own thinking and conclusions)....that is what I meant by morality bully.

hatsoff wrote:Again, I don't see how this is any more autocratic than a divine moral law.

And then you entered the conversation.

hatsoff wrote: And then you entered the conversation.

I don't think that anyone is saying here anyone with an atheistic worldview can't believe in the concepts of right and wrong, the issue or problem is that atheists have no logical reason to believe in right and wrong within their own worldview. For a Christian it is dictated from a single source that being God and the Bible whose morality "never" changes. But man's laws or morality, however, can change... Right and wrong in an atheists worldview could be reduced to mere personal preferences. As an example in the atheist beliefs, the statement “murder is wrong” could be nothing more than a personal opinion on the same level as “I like chocolate ice cream.” If others have a different opinion, we would have no basis for arguing with them.

In the atheistic world it can become irrational when they talk about right and wrong, for such concepts make no sense in an atheistic evolutionary universe. Especially in a world that is dictated by the "survival of the fittest.." People are no longer considered created in the image of God, but are animals just like any other animal you find in the world. The value of life is degraded to a meaningless bunch of chemicals. So why should we be so concerned about what they do? Who cares? In fact it's better that many don't survive to curb overpopulation, consumerism and pollution.

hatsoff wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I am perplexed. If God still has the freedom and can condemn Hitchens, then how exactly has Hitchens denied God such freedom?

First of all, let's not overlook the fact that Hitchens does care deeply about this issue, so it would be a mistake to say that Hitchens' opinions are without value or meaningless. Second, you seem to have answered your own question by distinguishing between a denial of freedom and enforceability of that denial. So, Hitchens doesn't physically deny God any freedoms; rather, he denies God the freedom to condemn him in principle.

I am the one who said that Hitchen's "right" to deny God's condemnation was without value and meaningless. I think you are the one who is confused about "rights" and expressions of opinions. During the Civil Rights Movement, there was much expression of opinions, but those aren't rights. The blacks were fighting for their rights. They could express all they wanted to, but they did not have the rights they sought until they became legal. For Hitchens to be able to express his opinions regarding God has nothing to do with rights. To be able to act on one's expression shows a right. To be able to express without acting on it, is an ability.

hatsoff wrote:

Moreover, in order for Hitchens to deny God anything (leaving enforceability aside), the right to deny must be his.

But this is clearly not so. As I have already stated, we do not require rights in order to act, or to formulate our own opinions or principles. Just as God doesn't need the right to condemn Hitchens in order to actually condemn him, neither does Hitchens need the right to deny God that freedom in order to express his own principles.

Again, you're confusing simple expression with the ability to act (rights). Actually, God is rational and "fair." He does show us that He has the "right" to condemn us (read Genesis). Throughout the Bible God explains much of his actions, so that we know why He does what He does - when He punishes Isreal, He tells them why ahead of time and gives them a chance to think about it and change. Like Kurieou said, Hitchens is just protesting (and that's why, it seems to me, he is really agnostic), he can't actually deny God anything, so it's laughable. It is funny. It's like an unfortunate armless man in a wheel chair shouting, "I can brush my teeth!" When he clearly cannot. It ultimately has no meaning or value. One has to deal with the reality of the situation and figure out a way for one's desires to mesh with reality.

Gman wrote:So why should we be so concerned about what they do? Who cares? In fact it's better that many don't survive to curb overpopulation, consumerism and pollution.

Is is better? Better by what measure?

touchingcloth wrote:

Gman wrote:So why should we be so concerned about what they do? Who cares? In fact it's better that many don't survive to curb overpopulation, consumerism and pollution.

Is is better? Better by what measure?

That's the question.. What are you measuring it against?

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:

Gman wrote:So why should we be so concerned about what they do? Who cares? In fact it's better that many don't survive to curb overpopulation, consumerism and pollution.

Is is better? Better by what measure?

That's the question.. What are you measuring it against?

I think that's what hatsoff is getting at when he talks about the congruence of moral and prudential actions.

If I want to keep myself happy then it might seem that robbing, cheating and killing my way around the planet would be a fine way to go about it...especially seeing as human life is no more or less valuable than the emptiness of space. A deeper examination shows that this is not the case - as soon as you have other people with the same desire to be happy in the mix, then you can forget killing, robbing and cheating as being a good way to behave. The tradeoffs and feedback mechanisms in a society mean that if I want what is "better" (measured by "what I would like"), then some other kind of behaviour has to be adopted.

cslewislover wrote:For Hitchens to be able to express his opinions regarding God has nothing to do with rights. To be able to act on one's expression shows a right. To be able to express without acting on it, is an ability.

If Hitchens constructs a code of freedoms in which God is denied the freedom to condemn him to Hell, then, with respect to Hitchens' code, God does not have the right to do so. Of course, God can also construct his own code of freedoms, in which he is granted the right to condemn Hitchens. In this way, when asking whether some agent has a particular right, we may get different answers depending on the code we choose to consult.

So, this is what I mean when I say that rights are relative---because they depend on a particular code or group of codes for context. We cannot talk about rights without identifying, implicitly or explicitly, a code of freedoms (e.g. divine law, government law, personal codes, etc.).

Now, you seem to object because Hitchens is unable to enforce his code, whereas God is supposedly able to perfectly enforce his. Thus we have the same sort of situation which bothers zoegirl, where physical power determines which codes get enforced and which do not.

Actually, God is rational and "fair."

Fair according to whom? According to God? Certainly not according to Hitchens.

He does show us that He has the "right" to condemn us (read Genesis).

Sure, according to his divine law. But according to Hitchens, God doesn't have that right.

Now, you may not care about Hitchens' code, but Hitchens cares a great deal! Yet because he is unable to enforce his code, it will not be enforced.

touchingcloth wrote: I think that's what hatsoff is getting at when he talks about the congruence of moral and prudential actions.

If I want to keep myself happy then it might seem that robbing, cheating and killing my way around the planet would be a fine way to go about it...especially seeing as human life is no more or less valuable than the emptiness of space. A deeper examination shows that this is not the case - as soon as you have other people with the same desire to be happy in the mix, then you can forget killing, robbing and cheating as being a good way to behave. The tradeoffs and feedback mechanisms in a society mean that if I want what is "better" (measured by "what I would like"), then some other kind of behaviour has to be adopted.

So my happiness relies on finding other people with the same desire to be happy in the mix in the way I want? What if I can't find such people?

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote: I think that's what hatsoff is getting at when he talks about the congruence of moral and prudential actions.

If I want to keep myself happy then it might seem that robbing, cheating and killing my way around the planet would be a fine way to go about it...especially seeing as human life is no more or less valuable than the emptiness of space. A deeper examination shows that this is not the case - as soon as you have other people with the same desire to be happy in the mix, then you can forget killing, robbing and cheating as being a good way to behave. The tradeoffs and feedback mechanisms in a society mean that if I want what is "better" (measured by "what I would like"), then some other kind of behaviour has to be adopted.

So my happiness relies on finding other people with the same desire to be happy in the mix in the way I want? What if I can't find such people?

Well if you couldn't find such people, it would mean that everyone else you encountered would be acting in the robbing/killing manner. If everyone else was acting in that manner then the society would be in chaos. Which would mean that everyone else would be unhappy. Your happiness doesn't rely on everyone else acting in the same way as you (refraining killing/cheating/robbing), but rather the desire of everyone else to be happy to. Whilst at face value cheating and robbing seems a good way to achieve this, if everyone did it then no one would be happy.

touchingcloth wrote: Well if you couldn't find such people, it would mean that everyone else you encountered would be acting in the robbing/killing manner. If everyone else was acting in that manner then the society would be in chaos. Which would mean that everyone else would be unhappy. Your happiness doesn't rely on everyone else acting in the same way as you (refraining killing/cheating/robbing), but rather the desire of everyone else to be happy to. Whilst at face value cheating and robbing seems a good way to achieve this, if everyone did it then no one would be happy.

Well I don't believe we could easily define immorality in such black or white issues such as robbing and killing. There are shades of gray and technically no one is exempt from doing it. Tell me, have you ever cheated or stole from anyone? Also what if I didn't have the desires to make others happy but focused only on my own happiness? In fact why would I even want to make others happy in my atheistic survival of the fittest world? Does the animal kingdom follow these examples?

Gman wrote:Well I don't believe we could easily define immorality in such black or white issues such as robbing and killing. There are shades of gray and technically no one is exempt from doing it. Tell me, have you ever cheated or stole from anyone? Also what if I didn't have the desires to make others happy but focused only on my own happiness? In fact why would I even want to make others happy in my atheistic survival of the fittest world? Does the animal kingdom follow these examples?

I wasn't thinking in black & white terms, just giving an example at the fringes of behaviour...

And yes, of course I've cheated and stolen. But making others happy is all part of making yourself happy, and the animal kingdom does follow in this respect. It even filters down as far as the bacterial world...