Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Do you think that we should push for laws against murder?

There is already law against murder. Why would you want to push something that already exists?

You didn't answer my question.

I didn't? I thought the answer of basically, "There already exists law making murder illegal." was answer in itself. Maybe you should be more specific in your question?

Kurieuo wrote:Perhaps I expected too much information to be understood re: moral argument for God's existence.

The moral argument is essentially built upon the fact that all people recognise that some some things are right, and some things are wrong. When we complain about being treated unfairly, or condemn those who do wrong as should have "knowing better", we appeal to a higher law built upon moral values we believe everyone should be aware to.

Without God, this "higher law" is only a mirage and morality is just a matter of personal taste relative to a person or group of people. Yet, because no one except a psychopath can live without a conscience, there thus appears to be a Moral Law that transcends humanity. This Moral Law, Christians believe (or ought to believe), comes from God.

I *think I understand this, but then again I'm probably too stupid. Uh...ya. I'll say yes. [/sarcasm]

Kurieuo wrote:Your saying morals are based on belief in a Creator God is in fact backwards. Your belief in right and wrong are ultimately derived from and therefore founded upon God's righteous nature like everyone else. Only, our vision can get clouded and the values God initially set in our heart can become more and more clouded particularly through the external influences of others.

Very good. Now if only "we" would apply this to everything we hold as "truth". This is a good statement I will have to remember for another topic.

Kurieuo wrote:However, given your moral sense that every human life is created equal and based on your acceptance of Scripture which says we humans should not murder each other for we are created in God's image, I should be able to simply appeal to this.

You can. I think we've established this a few times here.

Kurieuo wrote:However, you seem to then throw away such standards to embrace a you-say/they-say relativistic morality to try and let yourself off the hook.

Me off what hook? Are you suggesting I'm one of those Dr's taking part in abortion or that by some miracle I, as a male, became pregnant and aborted the fetus, or that one or more of my family, a friend, or someone I just met has had an abortion to which I encouraged the act?

Kurieuo wrote:This is either two-faced or confused. Either you believe in God and everyone is bound to a greater moral law, or God does not exist and to each person their own morality.

Not two-faced or confused at all. I do believe in God and under God everyone is bound to this greater moral law. However, we are not "under God" literally in this country (U.S. or Australia...I know you live there I just figured you understood what I meant. I suppose I'll be more explicit from now on.) The country (the U.S.) may have started off with a stronger lean on God to base its law and workings, but today that lean has lessened (in the U.S.) and in fact is being pushed aside to say that we (the U.S. as a country) are not a country under God (the Christian God as probably assumed in the wording of early U.S. documentation), but under ourselves where all religions, all beliefs, whether they invoke God, god, gods or no god is of no consequence, but we (the U.S.) will govern ourselves by vote of the majority.

Kurieuo wrote:Just look at your following question to me.

Bav wrote:So, how are we basing law in this country and by whose morals? If it be based on Godly morals, then abortion can be deemed illegal solely on morality reasons. If it is based on what society deems moral, then the legality of abortion is up in the air.

In this country, do you mean Australia?

Real "good", that is, some moral actions being really right making others really wrong, can only be explained by God's existence.

To a believer in God.

Kurieuo wrote:Do you believe in a morality that transcends humanity Bav? If so, then you should be pushing what you know to be true and trying to be a light to the world and correct the vision of others. To wash your hands of the matter is rather Pilate-ish.

No. My perspective is different. It makes no difference whether abortion is legal or not. The true fight for life is at the personal level, not at the civic level. In my opinion, Pilate was right! He had no law that said Jesus had done anything wrong. He rightly washed his hands of the blood of Jesus, however after washing his hands, instead of releasing Jesus and putting the responsibility back onto the chief priests, HE had Jesus flogged and crucified under his authority. Up to that point, Pilate was right. His law found no wrong that Jesus be put to death. Had he released Jesus and forced the chief priests to take matters into their own hands, we'd have a different view of Pilate today.

Kurieuo wrote:Have a read of the following article: Punishing Illegal Abortion: If abortion is murder, should aborting women be tried as murderers?

Perhaps you should read my previous responses rather than trying to dance in circles.

I like to dance. It's fun. The fact remains. The real fight is not in the legality or illegality of abortion. The real fight is in prevention. If abortion is murder, then law exists already stating so. It's up to society and what IT decides is moral as to the legality of it. As Christians, our fight is not whether it is civilly legal or not, but to prevent such tragedy from occuring going to the source...if it be our calling.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:
I didn't? I thought the answer of basically, "There already exists law making murder illegal." was answer in itself. Maybe you should be more specific in your question?

Bav, let's say that "conventional" murder was legal today. Why is it legal? Probably because the majority of society thinks it should be, and I don't think anyone is here to debate that point.

Kurieuo wrote:This is either two-faced or confused. Either you believe in God and everyone is bound to a greater moral law, or God does not exist and to each person their own morality.

BavarianWheels wrote: Not two-faced or confused at all. I do believe in God and under God everyone is bound to this greater moral law. However, we are not "under God" literally in this country (U.S. or Australia...I know you live there I just figured you understood what I meant. I suppose I'll be more explicit from now on.) The country (the U.S.) may have started off with a stronger lean on God to base its law and workings, but today that lean has lessened (in the U.S.) and in fact is being pushed aside to say that we (the U.S. as a country) are not a country under God (the Christian God as probably assumed in the wording of early U.S. documentation), but under ourselves where all religions, all beliefs, whether they invoke God, god, gods or no god is of no consequence, but we (the U.S.) will govern ourselves by vote of the majority.

I agree with just about everything here, and none of this is an issue. The U.S. governs by way of the majority, and taking that into account you could logically conclude that at the present time many people do not wish abortion to be illegal.

However, do you not agree that there is an issue of innocents being murdered every day? That morally, there is a great injustice being allowed to happen here? It doesn’t matter what the rest of the world thinks, if they are wrong. You have answered many times that abortion is wrong. Do you not KNOW this to be true? (and many others, whether they admit it or not).

I think you may be viewing this issue slightly off. When you imagine abortion illegal, do you imagine society the exact same as it is today, except somewhere on a piece of paper abortion is now illegal? If so that’s absurd, when you advocate illegality of abortion it’s asking for CHANGE, a very real change not just the signing of a paper. You accomplish this by many things YOU have advocated in this thread, like education and prevention. The fight for illegality and the fight on a personal level are one in the same. Does it not necessarily follow that once people are aware of all aspects of abortion, the law can change? People’s beliefs shift, and if you can help that shift by pushing it in a more moral direction, one that YOU know is true and righteous, where is the problem? No one should ever forget that we are a part of this (soon to be) godless society, and also have a hand in shaping it.

BavarianWheels wrote: I like to dance. It's fun. The fact remains. The real fight is not in the legality or illegality of abortion. The real fight is in prevention. If abortion is murder, then law exists already stating so. It's up to society and what IT decides is moral as to the legality of it. As Christians, our fight is not whether it is civilly legal or not, but to prevent such tragedy from occuring going to the source...if it be our calling.
.
.

Again, this goes back to what I previously stated. I think what you perceive to be the issue and what everyone else is saying go hand in hand. Society does determine laws, but as I said before society can change. If an atheist does not believe in God, and he makes it clear that the only thing holding him back is an issue that you have an extremely good answer for, what do you do? Do you merely say “oh well, this is a secular society and he can decide his opinion.” That’s a very lazy stance on being a Christian, and I hope that isn’t the case.

I believe in SHOWING people, even a majority where they are wrong and trying to convert people’s opinions to a more righteous path. In a secular society, we WILL have to accept some things that go against our beliefs, but to not try and change them? Is that not also our right in a secular society?

Hi all,
I respond as an atheist. However, please understand I cannot, nor would I, attempt to respond for all atheists. I have observed that there appears to me to be an objective meaning and purpose to life that all manimals follow regardless of their beliefs. It is...

1. To live as long as possible, and

2. To find, create, build a life one can live with

From here I see each of us working out the specifics of our personal existence. What we believe or not about deities and religion would also fall under number two. It wouldn't be logical to argue that an atheist has no meaning or purpose for his/her existence just because he/she doesn't have a belief in the existence of deities. Stated another way...just because belief in a specific deity provides the believer with a personal subjective sense of his/her reason/purpose for existence doesn't automatically negate the atheist from holding his/her own subjective reasons/purpose for his/her existence. The two are not mutually exclusive.

If, on the other hand, a believer holds that his/her belief in God includes a purpose/reason that is objectively transcendent from, and therefore not subjective...that's another and more specific issue. From what I've read thusfar in this thread, I suspect that is probably what the believer means when he/she wonders how the atheist can have/hold a sense of purpose/reason for their existence sans a belief in God.

I can only say, in response to this, that even though I have no belief in an existent deity I still have beliefs in a plethora of subjects associated with life as I view it from my godless perspective. I seriously doubt we differ in most areas of the human condition in our beliefs, outside this one area of existent deities. As fellow manimals we have much more in common than we have to disagree about. You may go to church on Sunday while I sleep in. You may give a streetside beggar a buck and credit God with the desire to do so, while I would simply remember some lean times of my own where someone helped me, as my reason for giving. You may feel a definite internal repulsion at the news of another catholic preist being accused of child molestation while I would feel the same. I may ascribe a slightly different reason that I feel this moral outrage but that we both experience it we cannot deny.

whynot wrote:Hi all,
I respond as an atheist. However, please understand I cannot, nor would I, attempt to respond for all atheists. I have observed that there appears to me to be an objective meaning and purpose to life that all manimals follow regardless of their beliefs. It is...

1. To live as long as possible, and

2. To find, create, build a life one can live with

Are you telling us we all should live by these principles because you think them to be good? Beyond yourself, what are these principles grounded in? Why should another atheist agree with you if they see something else. What gives them their "objective" meaning and purpose?

Kurieuo wrote:

whynot wrote:Hi all,
I respond as an atheist. However, please understand I cannot, nor would I, attempt to respond for all atheists. I have observed that there appears to me to be an objective meaning and purpose to life that all manimals follow regardless of their beliefs. It is...

1. To live as long as possible, and

2. To find, create, build a life one can live with

Kurieuo: Are you telling us we all should live by these principles because you think them to be good?


Whynot: This is what I said: "I have observed that there appears to me to be an objective meaning and purpose to life that all manimals follow regardless of their beliefs." As you can see, there are no "shoulds or oughts" in that statement. But I will attempt to clarify. Or, even better than that...you can submit any human activity or behavior you wish and I'll show you under which classification it fits, and why. And I also did not attach any value assignment to that statement. If you read it for comprehension only you should be able to ascertain that it was nothing more or less than a simple statement articulated on the basis of my years of experience and observation as a fellow sojourner on this planet earth. In fact, I'd hesitate to call them principles as much as I'd probably feel more comfortable labeling them as axioms of purpose for human behavior. Whether they are "good" or not would be a matter of individual subjective opinion. They are, more than anything else, a functional descriptive of most basic human behavior. And, since we almost always have a reason for every action we engage in, they could be considered the over-arching axiomatic purpose beneath our daily activities. I would say that finding one's religious or spiritual balance fits snugly within the parameters of axiom number two. And please note, these axioms do not speak either for or against any specific religious or non-religious worldview. I can think of no reason why the christian God would not desire his creatures find/work/seek a lifestyle they can live with. Of course, you might argue that so long as that lifestyle conformed to christian values and such...and that is all well and good. The axiom does not rule in favor of or against any specific lifestyle. It only states that the majority of humanity will actively seek a lifestyle they can live with. If this includes or necessitates belief and conformity to christian values...well and good. If that individual finds this to be the state of existence he/she prefers as liveable...the axiom stands unrefuted.




K: Beyond yourself, what are these principles grounded in?


Whynot: Human nature.

K: Why should another atheist agree with you if they see something else?


whynot: They shouldn't. There's a world of difference twixt dogma and axioms.


K: What gives them their "objective" meaning and purpose?

Whynot: Their falsifiability. They are based on my observations of human behavior and I certainly hope humanity and its behavior is objective enough to satisfy the demands of this criticism. I submit them for yours and anyone elses consideration, critical analysis and testing. I also submit them as part of my answer to the OP's questions about atheistic purpose and reason. They are not an alternative religion or a threat to any religion that I can see. If I am wrong on this count I am open for education.

I think we have different definitions of "objective" in objective meaning and purpose.

If this is just your subjective point of view, then you have subjective meaning and purpose (relative to yourself). On the other hand, if this is objective meaning and purpose by this classification would normally be understood philosophically, then this meaning and purpose is true for all regardless of what anyone thinks.

For example, assume God created us. Our purpose then surrounds that for which God designed us to fulfill. One can choose to ignore or believe something contrary, but they would be wrong to do so. For it is true that our purpose is what God designed us for, and this would be objectively true for all regardless of what we think.

On the other hand, assume we are a product of merely energy and matter being played out via the unfolding of physical laws playing their part. The our purpose is...? I'd suppose, whatever we decide we want it to be. That is, subjective to each of us. Yours is just as good as the next person's. For someone, it might be quite the opposite to you, to realize the frivolity of living life given its temporal nature and end it. Or for another to "shake ones fist" at the universe/"God" and live out life as though it matters finding meaning where one chooses.

"Kurieuo" :I think we have different definitions of "objective" in objective meaning and purpose.

Whynot: Meaning and purpose are not objects, places, events or properties. In and of themselves, they cannot logically be objective. They can, however, be derived from or correspond to objective places, objects, events, or properties...thus endowing them with a degree of credibility that transcends the individuals subjective opinions. That is what the theist is attempting to do in his assertion that an assumed God transfuses objective meaning and purpose into a humans existence. The relevant difference between an "assumed" God and actual human behavior, (which is what these two axioms derive their objectivity from), human behavior does not have to be assumed. It is a self evident and universal attribute of the human condition that can be readily directly observed/verified empirically...whereas an "assumed" God cannot.

K: If this is just your subjective point of view, then you have subjective meaning and purpose (relative to yourself). On the other hand, if this is objective meaning and purpose by this classification would normally be understood philosophically, then this meaning and purpose is true for all regardless of what anyone thinks.

Whynot: Agreed. Which is why I invite anyone, for whatever reason, to test these axioms for objectivity. Name any human behavior you can think of that cannot be snugly catalogued within one or both of these axioms. And please understand, I do not submit this to challenge the veracity of your beliefs. A fellow human being asked a simple question about atheistic meaning and purpose for life and I gave an honest account based on my own experience. It should be simple enough to demonstrate that these axioms are merely my subjective opinion and do not qualify as objective standards by which we can classify all human behavior.

K: For example, assume God created us. Our purpose then surrounds that for which God designed us to fulfill. One can choose to ignore or believe something contrary, but they would be wrong to do so. For it is true that our purpose is what God designed us for, and this would be objectively true for all regardless of what we think.

Whynot: Exactly. Now consider all the multivarious human behaviors you have ever either experienced personally or observed in other humans. Such as you can list do not have to be assumed. Folks would think you'd taken leave of your senses if you claimed, "I assume that what I just saw was Johnny kissing Martha, when in fact that is just what occured. A common enough human behavior...yes?

K: On the other hand, assume we are a product of merely energy and matter being played out via the unfolding of physical laws playing their part. The our purpose is...? I'd suppose, whatever we decide we want it to be. That is, subjective to each of us.

Whynot: And regardless of which side of that issue you land on...whether as a believer or not...all of your behaviors that follow thereafter, and followed up to that point from your conception forward...can be classified under one or both of the axioms which I previously articulated. So it makes no difference if you believe your actions and behaviors are part of a greater purpose than your own...or not...all of your behaviors will still fall into one or both of these catagories. If you move out of a comfortable home in smalltown USA into the jungles of South America to treat the terminally ill, because you believe that is God's calling for your life here on earth...all of your behaviors to fulfill that calling will still be classifiable as finding a life you can live with. How you go about fulfilling these axioms can be as unique and different as anything you might imagine...and entirely subjectively decided...but you will still act and behave according to these axioms. That is why they are objectively axiomatic. They are universal and inescapable and represent a reason and purpose for your existence from the cradle to the grave. If they did not, you would behave otherwise.


K: Yours is just as good as the next person's. For someone, it might be quite the opposite to you, to realize the frivolity of living life given its temporal nature and end it.


Whynot: Suicide is the ultimate proof of the veracity of these axioms. When a person gives up on axiom two, it leads directly to the choice of whether or not to give up on axiom one.

K: Or for another to "shake ones fist" at the universe/"God" and live out life as though it matters finding meaning where one chooses.

Whynot: Makes no difference what subjective path any of us choose to follow. The actions and behaviors we engage along the way will always fulfill these two axioms.

Can you show me how much 'meaning and purpose' will exist upon the heat death of the universe?

I'd also say your list is pretty short for what applies to humans. Another easy addition is "Wanting to be remembered after you are dead."

whynot wrote: 1. To live as long as possible, and

2. To find, create, build a life one can live with

The life I wish to build and can live with is to kill everyone who wishes to build a life they can live with. You're absolutely right, it does fit 2 very well so you cannot deny me such a life.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Can you show me how much 'meaning and purpose' will exist upon the heat death of the universe?

I'd also say your list is pretty short for what applies to humans. Another easy addition is "Wanting to be remembered after you are dead."

Whynot: Hi Marcos,
If that is an integral part of your desire to create a life you can live with, then you'll learn what values you need to accomplish the goal of being remembered after you die, and you'll actively pursue them...yes?

Byblos wrote:

whynot wrote: 1. To live as long as possible, and

2. To find, create, build a life one can live with

The life I wish to build and can live with is to kill everyone who wishes to build a life they can live with. You're absolutely right, it does fit 2 very well so you cannot deny me such a life.

Greetings Byblos,
Cool handle btw. If that is one of the goals you've established in securing a lifestyle you can live with, you are free to want that for yourself. However, i would remind you that wanting anything does not automatically provide you with the possession of the want or desire. And, as I'm sure you know, some things come with a higher price than others. You may learn, along the path of laboring to secure this value, that others also have their own personal subjective desires and goals which may include preventing you from doing them harm. Under such conflicting circumstances, if you find yourself in a place where acquiring number two values conflicts with number one axiom..."the desire to live as long as possible"...you will have to choose which is the more important axiom. Obviously, if you are dead, the acquisition of number two purposes becomes a moot issue.

whynot wrote:

Byblos wrote:

whynot wrote: 1. To live as long as possible, and

2. To find, create, build a life one can live with

The life I wish to build and can live with is to kill everyone who wishes to build a life they can live with. You're absolutely right, it does fit 2 very well so you cannot deny me such a life.

Greetings Byblos,
Cool handle btw. If that is one of the goals you've established in securing a lifestyle you can live with, you are free to want that for yourself. However, i would remind you that wanting anything does not automatically provide you with the possession of the want or desire. And, as I'm sure you know, some things come with a higher price than others. You may learn, along the path of laboring to secure this value, that others also have their own personal subjective desires and goals which may include preventing you from doing them harm. Under such conflicting circumstances, if you find yourself in a place where acquiring number two values conflicts with number one axiom..."the desire to live as long as possible"...you will have to choose which is the more important axiom. Obviously, if you are dead, the acquisition of number two purposes becomes a moot issue.

Unless of course I have already acquired the means of being untouchable. I set the rules, I break them at will, I answer to no one but me.

whynot wrote: Whynot: Hi Marcos,
If that is an integral part of your desire to create a life you can live with, then you'll learn what values you need to accomplish the goal of being remembered after you die, and you'll actively pursue them...yes?

Perhaps... but then that second point seems too open-ended to me. In fact, you could make that the only point - trying to live longer and reproduce is really just part of 'living a life one can live with' right?

Byblos wrote:

whynot wrote:

Byblos wrote:

whynot wrote: 1. To live as long as possible, and

2. To find, create, build a life one can live with

The life I wish to build and can live with is to kill everyone who wishes to build a life they can live with. You're absolutely right, it does fit 2 very well so you cannot deny me such a life.

Greetings Byblos,
Cool handle btw. If that is one of the goals you've established in securing a lifestyle you can live with, you are free to want that for yourself. However, i would remind you that wanting anything does not automatically provide you with the possession of the want or desire. And, as I'm sure you know, some things come with a higher price than others. You may learn, along the path of laboring to secure this value, that others also have their own personal subjective desires and goals which may include preventing you from doing them harm. Under such conflicting circumstances, if you find yourself in a place where acquiring number two values conflicts with number one axiom..."the desire to live as long as possible"...you will have to choose which is the more important axiom. Obviously, if you are dead, the acquisition of number two purposes becomes a moot issue.

Byblos: Unless of course I have already acquired the means of being untouchable. I set the rules, I break them at will, I answer to no one but me.

Whynot: And history is paved with just such dramas...not so much from individuals but from societies and large groups. Every success brings with it the burden of responsibility. We live in a world of limited resources, thus competition is inevitable. Cooperative competition appears to be the most effective means of securing axiom 2 values. So even if your desires/goals are not quite so dramatic, there will always be the necessity to act, often competitively, in the procurement of your values.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:

whynot wrote: Whynot: Hi Marcos,
If that is an integral part of your desire to create a life you can live with, then you'll learn what values you need to accomplish the goal of being remembered after you die, and you'll actively pursue them...yes?

Perhaps... but then that second point seems too open-ended to me. In fact, you could make that the only point - trying to live longer and reproduce is really just part of 'living a life one can live with' right?

Whynot: Yes, you are very right and I have, in fact, cogitated on the reduction to one single axiom. However, I also realize that axiom 1 is a necessary prerequisite before axiom 2 values can be established or pursued. One must be alive in order to acquire a life worth living...yes? And there currently exists very good scientific evidence that suggests axiom 1 is genetically hard-wired into us as mortal biological creatures. Whereas axiom 2 values are most often the result of nurture. So we have axiom 1 as a derivative of nature and axiom 2 as a derivative of axiom 1 and nurture. That way all bases are covered.

As to reproduction...well, that too would be a matter of personal subjective preference. Some folks simply won't see a life devoid of children as a life worth living and will actively pursue a family setting, while others will not. Axiom 2 is, by necessity, open ended.