Evidence for God from Science

Greatings Spock question - Do you love your wife?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:Greatings Spock question - Do you love your wife?
-
-
-

Yes. Do you agree with Craig's Moral Argument for God?

So, are you saying peoples hearts were harder back in say 500 BC, then they were in the first century when Jesus came, or even today in some Muslim countries?

No that is not what I am saying, some people's hearts are just as hard today as way back then. I am saying that God had to work with people who's hearts were hard and calloused, he had to work within the social structure of the time just as he does today, he accomplishes good out of evil yet is not responsible for the evil acts Romans 8:28.

If I recall correctly the Bible contains much compassion and love, along with much brutality and wickedness. And even if people as a whole are more focused on human rights today, it's not because of God working through people.

Yes the Bible is a history book as well as many other things, it records good deeds and bad deeds so that we may learn and grow, I think this makes it more authentic.
I don't see society focused more on human rights, society is focused on money, posessions and who can suck the most out of this little planet while kids are dying in the streets and wars are being waged continually, more people have died in bloody battles in the last couple of hundred years than in all of recorded history.

The last revelation that anyone received from God was two thousand years ago and things got really bad for a long time afterwards, pretty much right up until 20th century.

People have revelation from God all the time, these things have not passed, just talk to some missionarys about their experiences in the field and I am sure they would have some stories to tell.

What it looks like is God just let people work things out for themselves...

It's called freewill.....................

Spock wrote: For this conversation to progress, you need to tell me if you do or do not accept Dr. Craig's appeal to subjective opinions as the sole support of his assertion that objective moral facts exist. Specifically, the only support he gave for his assertion is that it is "obvious" and that "we all know it." See my first post for further details.

.

I don't agree with Craig's position at all. You are simply playing devil's advocate assuming we agree with his argument, no? There are a lot of differing viewpoints on the more non essential points of Christianity here.

You guys needed me?

Spock wrote:Greetings. May you all live and prosper.

Ok, well, first off I'm going to tell you to stop with the gimmick. Its not amusing.

Spock wrote:In reviewing this thread, I have noticed an adamant rejection of the idea that the near universal moral intuition of the Golden Rule could be used as the basis of objective moral values.

Well, theres a question that needs to be asked.

What formulation of the Golden rule are you talking about?

Spock wrote:This seems inconsistent with the argument put forth by the eminent Christian philosopher William Lane Craig who appeals merely to it being "obvious" and that "we all know it" as proof that objective moral values exist. Here is the relevant quote:

Craig's argument is more specifically that objective moral values is intuitive knowledge. This is based in Ontology.

Spock wrote:The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality
And could anything be more obvious than that objective moral values do exist? There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world. ... The fact is that we do apprehend objective values, and we all know it. Actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and brutality are not just socially unacceptable behavior--they are moral abominations. As Ruse himself states, "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5." By the same token, love, generosity, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good. People who fail to see this are just morally handicapped, and there is no reason to allow their impaired vision to call into question what we see clearly.

Whats your objection against this?

Spock wrote:I checked his other writings and could find no logical foundation for his assertion.

You obviously didn't read his book.

Spock wrote:He supports it merely by appealing to the subjective experience of humans.

Uh, no, thats not his support. In his writings, he provides counter arguments against common "run of the mill" arguments that are against his position.

Spock wrote:Such an appeal has been soundly rejected in this thread.

I've not been part of the active discussion here, so if you don't mind, can you show us where this "sound" rejection is? More importantly, can you show us where someone is saying that the counter arguments alone support the position?

Spock wrote:Would not logical consistency demand a similar rejection of Dr. Craig's argument?

Well, we're going to have to ask you where the logical inconsistency is. Its important to note that not everyone here likes to, nor holds a position like William Craig does. Craig is much more practiced and well equipped to handle himself, and he does an OK job of providing other young theists with a cookie cutter rational basis for their beliefs. Its important to note this because debating with people who learn from him is vastly different then actually having an debate with him. Its actually very different from the opposition. You'll see what I mean in a minute.

Spock wrote:There also seems to be an inconsistency in his examples of things that are objectively immoral.

You think so? Please continue

Spock wrote:Specifically, he says "Actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and brutality are not just socially unacceptable behavior--they are moral abominations."

This is correct. Question is, how do YOU know that these actions are moral abominations?

Spock wrote:This seems inconsistent because we see genocide (the slaughter of every man, woman, and child) commanded by God in the Bible. This appears to be a direct contradiction.

This is some standard "run of the mill" Richard Dawkins "philosophy" claiming that its inconsistant with biblical theology. You admit yourself that it "seems" inconsistent. I seriously doubt you have any shred of theology understanding of what appears to be an objection against the command from God. My point is, Dawkins and you are making a theology based objection, and not one based in logic.

If you're going to go ahead and accept this piece of theology, perhaps you should actually, you know.....understand God in its proper theology?

Perhaps you should look into the Caananite culture and "rituals" before you claim something as ignorant like God is in direct contradiction. The Caananites could have ALL actually got up and left and they would have all turn out alive. The Israelites didn't even fully carry out his command, by the way. The Israelites suffered for their disobedience. There is FAR MORE to this then what I am saying here. I am sure if you go to the theology section of the site, you'll get FAR MORE information then what I have provided.

The point still stands, though. This Dawkins objection isn't a logical based one. Its a theology objection (probably grounded in emotions), and its incredibly ignorant of the facts.

Spock wrote:If anything is objectively immoral, we must agree that genocide is objectively immoral.

I agree. However, God didn't command Genocide. Lets make that clear.

Spock wrote:If we reject this proposition, would not Dr. Craig's examples of "obvious" immorality fail?

No, it doesn't. Its not a logical argument. Its a theology argument, and you got the theology wrong.

Spock wrote:It is my hope that our discussion will clarify and resolve these logical conundrums.

I hope I resolved this for you. If not, please go to the theology section and ask there. We mainly discuss philosophy in this section of the board, not theology.

Echoside wrote: I don't agree with Craig's position at all. You are simply playing devil's advocate assuming we agree with his argument, no? There are a lot of differing viewpoints on the more non essential points of Christianity here.

No, I'm not trying to be a "devil's advocate." I explained my reasons in my first post. Here is what I said:

In reviewing this thread, I have noticed an adamant rejection of the idea that the near universal moral intuition of the Golden Rule could be used as the basis of objective moral values. This seems inconsistent with the argument put forth by the eminent Christian philosopher William Lane Craig who appeals merely to it being "obvious" and that "we all know it" as proof that objective moral values exist.

I am seeking logical consistency, clarity, and an answer to the title of this thread, that's all. I was speaking of comments that I saw in this thread. If you don't agree with Dr. Craig's moral argument for God, then my comment probably does not apply to you.

Do you hold to any particular position about objective morality? Do you think it is real? If so, what do you base it upon? These are the kinds of questions suggested by the title of this thread "Morality Without God?".

Butterfly wrote:
When I was a Christian I thought Jesus was the son of God, one with God, and the second person of the Trinity. The reason I no longer can believe that Jesus is God, or the son of God, is because of the Biblegod's immoral behavior. If the God of the Bible is not a true god then all of the claims of Jesus are false.

Is it then safe to assume "when you were a Christian", that you placed your faith in Christ for your salvation, Butterfly?

RickD wrote:

Butterfly wrote:
When I was a Christian I thought Jesus was the son of God, one with God, and the second person of the Trinity. The reason I no longer can believe that Jesus is God, or the son of God, is because of the Biblegod's immoral behavior. If the God of the Bible is not a true god then all of the claims of Jesus are false.

Is it then safe to assume "when you were a Christian", that you placed your faith in Christ for your salvation, Butterfly?

Yes, that is correct.
-

domokunrox wrote:You guys needed me?

Spock wrote:Greetings. May you all live and prosper.

Ok, well, first off I'm going to tell you to stop with the gimmick. Its not amusing.

And I shall tell you to stop being needlessly rude. There are ways to communicate displeasure without barking out orders like you are the ruler over others.

You misunderstood my intent. I was not trying to be "amusing." When reviewing this thread I noticed significant levels of irrationality and many logical fallacies and misdirections, so I chose a persona that would evoke a sense of logic in the hope of elevating the conversation to something more fruitful. Most of your responses to my post seem rude and dismissive. If that is not your intent, you would do well to learn how to express yourself better.

domokunrox wrote: Craig's argument is more specifically that objective moral values is intuitive knowledge. This is based in Ontology.

Craig's fallacy is a false disjunction between ontology and epistemology, as I explained in the post you are responding to. It seems as if you responded before reading and comprehending my argument. Here it is again so there will be no misunderstanding. Craig's disjunction is invalid because epistemology is fundamentally dependent upon ontology. Here is how Hugh G. Gauch, Jr. explains it in his book Scientific Method in Practice:

In ordinary discourse, ontology, epistemology, and logic are reasonably distinct and recognizable topics within philosophy. But at the point where discourse begins, those topics fuse together. The reason is that epistemology presumes ontology, because what we know depends on what exists. But also ontology presumes epistemology, because what we can become aware of depends on our sensory and cognitive faculties. And logic is operating in any rational discourse.

A complete theory of morality is no different than a complete theory of arithmetic in the sense that any complete theory must fully unify ontology, epistemology, logic, and practice.

My conception of objective truth is analogous to inertial frames of reference in relativistic physics. Though observers in different frames will see things differently, there are objective rules to transform from one to the other so that the objective facts concerning events in space-time can be discerned by all observers. This is what makes the Golden Rule objective. It tells us to put ourselves in the place of the other. This is a moral symmetry - any moral statement involving persons A and B must be symmetric under an interchange between those two people. Simply stated, it would be logically inconsistent to apply one standard to person A and a different standard to person B, everything else being equal. The principle of moral symmetry is analogous to the symmetry principles used in physics to derive fundamental universal laws such as the conservation of angular momentum which is implied by the rotational symmetry of space by Noether's theorem. This reveals the profound depth, beauty, and completeness of this theory of objective morality. It is based on the same kind of objective principles we use to derive the laws of physics.

Craig does not offer a complete moral theory. A complete moral theory must unify ontology, epistemology, and practice.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality
And could anything be more obvious than that objective moral values do exist? There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world. ... The fact is that we do apprehend objective values, and we all know it. Actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and brutality are not just socially unacceptable behavior--they are moral abominations. As Ruse himself states, "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5." By the same token, love, generosity, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good. People who fail to see this are just morally handicapped, and there is no reason to allow their impaired vision to call into question what we see clearly.

Whats your objection against this?

It is mere assertion. It does not explain or help us understand why something is moral or immoral. It is not a moral theory at all. This is why Craig's disjunction of ontology and epistemology is fallacious. There must be a unity between the two for any moral theory to be intellectually satisfying.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:I checked his other writings and could find no logical foundation for his assertion.

You obviously didn't read his book.

And you obviously did not read my argument.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:There also seems to be an inconsistency in his examples of things that are objectively immoral.

You think so? Please continue

I explained it in the post to which you are responding. Here it is again:

There also seems to be an inconsistency in his examples of things that are objectively immoral. Specifically, he says "Actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and brutality are not just socially unacceptable behavior--they are moral abominations." This seems inconsistent because we see genocide (the slaughter of every man, woman, and child) commanded by God in the Bible. This appears to be a direct contradiction. If anything is objectively immoral, we must agree that genocide is objectively immoral. If we reject this proposition, would not Dr. Craig's examples of "obvious" immorality fail?

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:Specifically, he says "Actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and brutality are not just socially unacceptable behavior--they are moral abominations."

This is correct. Question is, how do YOU know that these actions are moral abominations?

The same way you do. The same way all people with a moral sense do. The Golden Rule is the root of our moral intuitions. We discern what is moral or immoral by interchanging our self with the other and asking if we would want to be subject to our own actions. This is why the Golden Rule is objective. It is based on moral symmetry. I have explained this in detail in the last few pages of this thread. It would be good if you got up to speed.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:This seems inconsistent because we see genocide (the slaughter of every man, woman, and child) commanded by God in the Bible. This appears to be a direct contradiction.

This is some standard "run of the mill" Richard Dawkins "philosophy" claiming that its inconsistant with biblical theology. You admit yourself that it "seems" inconsistent. I seriously doubt you have any shred of theology understanding of what appears to be an objection against the command from God. My point is, Dawkins and you are making a theology based objection, and not one based in logic.

You dishonor yourself when you descend to ad hominem and the fallacy of guilt by association. Nothing I wrote has anything to do with Richard Dawkins and nothing he has written appears in my argument. It is Dr. William Lane Craig who said that objective morality is "obvious" and that "we all know it." It is Dr. William Lane Craig who said that "Actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and brutality are not just socially unacceptable behavior--they are moral abominations." If mere child rape is a "moral abomination" what then is genocide? If genocide is objectively immoral, then no amount of biblical sophistry can make it moral. You must deal with reality, not bury it under many words designed to misdirect. Dr. Craig said it was OBVIOUS and I agree. Genocide is obviously a moral abomination and it was commanded by Yahweh in the Bible.

domokunrox wrote: The point still stands, though. This Dawkins objection isn't a logical based one. Its a theology objection (probably grounded in emotions), and its incredibly ignorant of the facts.

Again, this is not a "Dawkins objection." According to Dr. William Lane Craig, the immorality of genocide should be self-evident to any moral being. Of course, he contradicts himself elsewhere when he attempts to justify the God of the Bible.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:If anything is objectively immoral, we must agree that genocide is objectively immoral.

I agree. However, God didn't command Genocide. Lets make that clear.

So now genocide is not defined as the slaughter of every man, woman, and child of a given group of people? Please quote a dictionary that agrees with your novel definition of genocide.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:If we reject this proposition, would not Dr. Craig's examples of "obvious" immorality fail?

No, it doesn't. Its not a logical argument. Its a theology argument, and you got the theology wrong.

Dr. Craig flatly asserts that his argument is a LOGICAL argument. In the article I quoted, titled the Moral Argument, he said this:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The argument is logically valid; so if you want to deny the conclusion, you must reject one of the two premisses. So which one do you deny? Although you present your reservations as worries about (2), it’s evident that you agree that (2) is true, for you say not only that you are “morally repulsed” by child rape, but that you think “child rape should be universally condemned.” I agree. So if you deny that God exists, you must reject (1). But do you reject (1)? There’s nothing in your letter that suggests that you do.

Note that he presented a logical argument.

Butterfly wrote:

RickD wrote:

Butterfly wrote:
When I was a Christian I thought Jesus was the son of God, one with God, and the second person of the Trinity. The reason I no longer can believe that Jesus is God, or the son of God, is because of the Biblegod's immoral behavior. If the God of the Bible is not a true god then all of the claims of Jesus are false.

Is it then safe to assume "when you were a Christian", that you placed your faith in Christ for your salvation, Butterfly?

Yes, that is correct.
-

Thank you, Butterfly. I was hoping you'd say that. In that case you are a believer, and you are saved in Christ for eternity. All these difficult questions you have aside, once you have been sealed with the Holy Spirit, nothing can separate you from God's love. God brought you here for a reason. You may or may
not get satisfactory answers for your questions right now. Most importantly, you are saved, and have
eternal life. If you are honest with yourself, you know this to be true. Even if you don't see it now, your
heavenly Father will NEVER leave you nor forsake you. While people will fail you, God will always be true to His promises to you.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

God will make these issues clear to you in His time, if you rest in him. Call upon Him. He's still there. He always was there. He will never leave you.

domokunrox wrote:
You guys needed me?

Dom, please keep the discussion respectful.

So now genocide is not defined as the slaughter of every man, woman, and child of a given group of people? Please quote a dictionary that agrees with your novel definition of genocide.

Please specify where in the Bible it talks about God condoning genocide, sometimes the text is predictive not presciptive or hyperbole.

As far as I am aware only combatants were ever killed and only after many warnings to leave or join the nation of Israel.

Here is a video of Bill defending so called genocide acts in the Bible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOgSxv37SbE


Dan

RickD wrote:

Butterfly wrote:

RickD wrote:

Butterfly wrote:
When I was a Christian I thought Jesus was the son of God, one with God, and the second person of the Trinity. The reason I no longer can believe that Jesus is God, or the son of God, is because of the Biblegod's immoral behavior. If the God of the Bible is not a true god then all of the claims of Jesus are false.

Is it then safe to assume "when you were a Christian", that you placed your faith in Christ for your salvation, Butterfly?

Yes, that is correct.
-

Thank you, Butterfly. I was hoping you'd say that. In that case you are a believer, and you are saved in Christ for eternity. All these difficult questions you have aside, once you have been sealed with the Holy Spirit, nothing can separate you from God's love. God brought you here for a reason. You may or may
not get satisfactory answers for your questions right now. Most importantly, you are saved, and have
eternal life. If you are honest with yourself, you know this to be true. Even if you don't see it now, your
heavenly Father will NEVER leave you nor forsake you. While people will fail you, God will always be true to His promises to you.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

God will make these issues clear to you in His time, if you rest in him. Call upon Him. He's still there. He always was there. He will never leave you.

I appreciate your kind words and concern. I didn't come to the place I am at now overnight, it has been a slow journey of discovery that happened quite by surprise. My mind continues to remain open, but I will never be able to view the Bible in the same way again, as I can find no way to justify the horrible immoralities I find contained within its pages.
-

Spock wrote:

B. W. wrote:Greatings Spock question - Do you love your wife?

Yes....

So if you entered your home with appropriate weapon, saw three men justifying their morality brutally assaulting your wife and child, what would you do:

1-Say, sorry guys, don't let me interrupt

2-Say, Here I am - attack me too while I dial 911

3-Or Kill the three men to save your wife and child?
-
-
-

Butterfly wrote:It seems one little butterfly has opened a Pandora's box of Christian male attackers (at least 10). I came here to question and be challenged, not to have false accusations hurled at me. I think your implications are outrageous, where have I even hinted at any Christian here or anywhere else participates in murder or slavery? I have not!

So you were directly challenged and so revert to the sexist card and victim card, it will not work with me. After all you admitted this - I came here to question and in doing so you offended many as I mentioned...

Butterfly wrote: My truthful statements have been that the Bible ordains and sanctions human rights violations including murder, and slavery. Can you deny that?

According to you, truth cannot be known because morality is realitive. Therefore, all your judgments about the bible are in error because there is no truth to judge by. You break your own golden rule and that also nulifies your judgments and truthfulness claims. Next, as for the Bible I shared in a brief nutshell the historical, social, facts of a brutal era of time and how God used his laws to expose sin and deal with it. It is you who cannot see because of a deep disdain toward men you have in your heart - are you a PK - Pastor's Kid?

Butterfly wrote:You also twist my words to mean something other than what I intended...shame on you. You said my premise is that "Man made up the bible god to justify the oppression of women, killing of innocents, justify slavery", I said no such thing. My premise is that the Bible is biased toward the male, reflecting the same gods and male mindset present in other cultures at the time, implying that the male, tribal war god Yahweh was created in their own minds. They didn't purposely make up a god to justify anything, Yahweh just reflected their belief system of the time-period.

Explain to me the difference between: 'My (Butterfly's) premise is that the Bible is biased toward the male, reflecting the same gods and male mindset present in other cultures at the time, implying that the male, tribal war god Yahweh was created in their own minds. They didn't purposely make up a god to justify anything, Yahweh just reflected their belief system of the time-period' .... from what I said your premise was: "...Man made up the bible god to justify the oppression of women, killing of innocents, justify slavery".

You just verified what I said! after all - you did write - tribal war god Yahweh was created in their own minds. They didn't purposely make up a god to justify anything, Yahweh just reflected their belief system of the time-period

Do you see your own contradiction = 'tribal war god Yahweh was created in their own minds' = and then in same breath write: 'They didn't purposely make up a god to justify anything.' How can they create but not purposely make up a god to justify their belief system of the time-period and be calling one Yahweh?

Thank you for verifying that your premise is and was indeed this: "Man made up the bible god to justify the oppression of women, killing of innocents, justify slavery.

Butterfly wrote: I have nothing to apologize for, as I have accused no one of anything. My focus has been solely on the content of the Bible. I will think long and hard on whether I want to continue on such a biased forum. I thought this forum welcomed free thought, but obviously you don't like your religious views challenged, sort of like Islam?

Don't not play the victim, marytr, here. It will not work. Your are staking a claim that morals - all morals come from human experience alone. Thus, any Chrisitian man who believes the bible is a moral monster who must approve of the OT laws regrading the topic you bring up = rape, slavery, oppression of women, etc... That is how your argument paints it sister.

That is an insult to me and others here to be put on trial, declared guilty, and not even rationally hear the other sides point of view. What moral authority gives you that right to ignor what everyone who disagrees with you has wrote here?

You have insulted me and others here. We are not male chauvinist here. So stop with the insulting tone - It seems one little butterfly has opened a Pandora's box of Christian male attackers (at least 10).

You do not know the historical context of the OT and why things were written to expose sin and then deal with it later on. Nor do you have a notion of time either, for example, how one generation dies out and with every knew generation, it has to re-learn many things all over again and again. Slow process. God works amongst all human generations teaching and re-teaching each generation again and again and all over again.The OT times are gone and we have a New Covenant - that too you have forgotten.

You admitted to coming here with clear intent to 'question and be challenged' then when you are challenged, you claim the sexist and marytr card. Dry your tears - you will be challenged. Guess you might have a little trouble living up to your own morality...when challenged.

Recall Butterfly, I apologized first to you regarding any ill treatment any male has ever caused you.

As easily as you are offended, another can be because of how you write your words and by the claims you are making.

Guess breaking your personal Golden Rule is morally justified then? but how can it be justified when the method breaks your personal golden rule and philosophy.

Lastly,

Do you desire your husband to love you, not be bitter, or harsh toward you? The bible teaches that. Or does such love the bible says a man is to have for his wife offend you instead? Makes you think - what do they want to take away from me? You were deeply hurt and you are by no means over it. Your answer above gives that away..
-
-
-