Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:Any Atheists want to respond to Lunalle on my behalf? Seriously though.

They've posted some interesting answers to Kurieuo.

Um....other than that, what specifically might you have in mind?

much cheers to all.

Thadeyus wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Any Atheists want to respond to Lunalle on my behalf? Seriously though.

They've posted some interesting answers to Kurieuo.

Um....other than that, what specifically might you have in mind?

much cheers to all.

*Kurieuo thinks about inviting some old school Athiests back*

Lunelle wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:[*]Atheists often say that God would be morally wrong to allow pain and suffering in the world if He is all-powerful and all-benevolent (or say "send people to hell"). Yet, the reality of concepts are not physically sensed--including objective moral concepts that some things really are wrong while other things really are bad regardless of what anyone thinks. Such wreaks of Theism.

Ohhh, morality, one of my favourite topics! Your opinion that some things "really are wrong", is commonly held by theist, but I believe it is incorrect, and medical science has nearly completely dis-proven it. A simple example is the legal defence of being under duress. If you steal something for someone while under duress (say they had a gun to your head), it would be bad, but not wrong. Even if your claim of universal morality is correct, that doesn't mean that two wrongs make a right (a fallacy of relevance). Surely it is wrong to torture someone in a burning pit of fire for all eternity... or do you believe that such behaviour is moral? Really, this is a claim against anti-theists though, not atheists. Atheists don't say "God would be morally wrong", or they'd be believing in the existence of God, now wouldn't they? Sneaky!

Lunelle, I'm glad you ultimately agree with me that Atheists are inconsistent with their beliefs.

The fact you believe somethings are really wrong (like burning someone in a pit of fire) would appear to contradict your opening sentence where you state it as incorrect that "some things really are wong". Oh dear. Really? Is it, or is it not, wrong to torture someone in a burning pit of fire for all eternity?

Furthermore, moral laws are not the same as moral values. Laws may differ from one society to the next, but usually the same values are realised. That "love" is a morally a good value, whereas "hate" is not. In fact, Christ Himself said that all the Law is fulfilled in love. It is in my opinion, the ultimate moral value from which all else proceeds is love, including many moral laws.

Lunelle wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:[*]Atheists often claim to be free thinkers, while embracing that we're the product of entirely physical processes and could not be other than what we are (Determinism).

I have to disagree with you, I've never heard an atheist say "we're the product of entirely physical processes and could not be other than what we are." Besides, what does that have to do with god(s)? That's an argument against determenists.

An Atheist is free to believe in more than having a lack of belief in God no? They're still people aren't they... people with beliefs? If so, then your comments have no real bearing. Furthermore, you're avoiding the stated issue.

Tell me your view on reality? Are you saying that you believe we are more than what is physical? If not, how is it we rise above the physical processes? You have my sincere interest if you are willing to put something on the table.

Lunelle wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:[*]Atheists often claim moral superiority in doing "good" for goodness sake rather than God's sake, yet what is the superior morality of which they speak and how is it they stand above the physical processes that constructed them to be "morally superior"?

How petty! Does it really matter who is "morally superior"?

I wouldn't expect anything less from someone who believes in no real morality... or who disagrees with some things being really wrong... like what? Rape -- that's not wrong? Pedophilia -- that's not wrong? Torturing someone for fun -- that's not wrong?

Oh wait! Sorry, to qualify you do believe believe it is wrong, surely wrong, at least for God to torture someone in a burning pit of fire for all eternity. While woefully strawmanish, this statement does seem to make you appear "morally superior" in your own eyes.

Lunelle wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:[*]Atheists often adhere to Physicalism, yet then believe what we sense of the world is true of the world. Yet Science, particularly physics, forces us to conclude that the world contains colourless particles and waves. Colour is therefore an illusion, a mental abstraction of the physical world that in fact nowhere exists in the physical world. A tinge of inconsistency here perhaps?

Well, I wrote about a page on this point, and decided to scrap it. I believe you're just talking about the fishbowl problem again, and making it more complicated with an example of vision.

You keep mentioning fishbowls. Please do explain what your problem is with fishbowls? I'm not sure I know what you mean.

Were you tortured in a fishbowl growing up or something? I hope it wasn't God torturing you. That'd make it wrong on so many levels don't you think?

Lunelle wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:[*]Atheism is built upon the hypocrisy of beliefs it pretends to have, but ultimately cannot sustain.

You seem not to understand the term atheism. Atheism doesn't pretend, or hold any beliefs.

Yet again, it is impossible, not to mention a fallacy, to try to defend something that doesn't exist (the lack of belief in god(s)).

That remains debatable. As I pointed out in a thread elsewhere, Atheism carries with it a "belief set" and certain presuppositions, especially for a person who defines himself as an Atheist compared to say a baby who perhaps truly has no real beliefs on matters concerning God.

Kurieuo wrote:I decided to just spend a few minutes thinking of things Atheists often say and claim, which I don't believe Atheism can actually support.

Atheism is kind of funny. We all naturally tend to believe certain things like being able to know truth, morality--some things really are bad like perhaps the crusades, "we" exist and are responsible for our decisions--even our thinking ability, justice ought to be served and the like. Because of this, I doubt there is an Atheist alive who is not an inconsistent Atheist. For to believe in many of these things, such beliefs have a basis in Theistic foundations that an Atheist must unwittingly borrow from.

So let me get started with some. I know I'm writing to the choir here, but I'm happy for an Atheist or two to try and defend against my statements if moderators allow.

• Atheists often say they accept what can be seen, smelt, touched, heard or tasted (i.e., accept truth about the world via physical senses). Yet, they fail to justify how that truth can be known without embracing fideism.
• Atheists often say that God would be morally wrong to allow pain and suffering in the world if He is all-powerful and all-benevolent (or say "send people to hell"). Yet, the reality of concepts are not physically sensed--including objective moral concepts that some things really are wrong while other things really are bad regardless of what anyone thinks. Such wreaks of Theism.
• Atheists often claim to be free thinkers, while embracing that we're the product of entirely physical processes and could not be other than what we are (Determinism).
• Atheists often claim moral superiority in doing "good" for goodness sake rather than God's sake, yet what is the superior morality of which they speak and how is it they stand above the physical processes that constructed them to be "morally superior"?
• Atheists often adhere to Physicalism, yet then believe what we sense of the world is true of the world. Yet Science, particularly physics, forces us to conclude that the world contains colourless particles and waves. Colour is therefore an illusion, a mental abstraction of the physical world that in fact nowhere exists in the physical world. A tinge of inconsistency here perhaps?
• Atheism is built upon the hypocrisy of beliefs it pretends to have, but ultimately cannot sustain.

Feel free to add your own.

Hello I’m new here. I would like to reply. My replies are in bold
• Atheists often say they accept what can be seen, smelt, touched, heard or tasted (i.e., accept truth about the world via physical senses). Yet, they fail to justify how that truth can be known without embracing fideism.
That truth can be known using 1 or more of my 5 senses.
• Atheists often say that God would be morally wrong to allow pain and suffering in the world if He is all-powerful and all-benevolent (or say "send people to hell"). Yet, the reality of concepts are not physically sensed--including objective moral concepts that some things really are wrong while other things really are bad regardless of what anyone thinks. Such wreaks of Theism.
You see it as theism, I just see it as common sense.
• Atheists often claim to be free thinkers, while embracing that we're the product of entirely physical processes and could not be other than what we are (Determinism).
Can you prove we are anything other than?• Atheists often claim moral superiority in doing "good" for goodness sake rather than God's sake, yet what is the superior morality of which they speak and how is it they stand above the physical processes that constructed them to be "morally superior"?
I don’t assume I am any better than anyone else so that doesn’t apply to me.
• Atheists often adhere to Physicalism, yet then believe what we sense of the world is true of the world. Yet Science, particularly physics, forces us to conclude that the world contains colourless particles and waves. Colour is therefore an illusion, a mental abstraction of the physical world that in fact nowhere exists in the physical world. A tinge of inconsistency here perhaps?
If those silly scientists don’t know what they are talking about when they dismiss the existence of your God, why would you assume they would know what they are talking about when they say Colour is therefore an illusion?• Atheism is built upon the hypocrisy of beliefs it pretends to have, but ultimately cannot sustain.
What beliefs do I have that I cannot sustain?

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:[. As I pointed out in a thread elsewhere, Atheism carries with it a "belief set" and certain presuppositions, especially for a person who defines himself as an Atheist compared to say a baby who perhaps truly has no real beliefs on matters concerning God.

What "belief set" and presuppositions does an Athiest carry with him? I've always considered an atheist as someone who is not a theist.

K

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:[. As I pointed out in a thread elsewhere, Atheism carries with it a "belief set" and certain presuppositions, especially for a person who defines himself as an Atheist compared to say a baby who perhaps truly has no real beliefs on matters concerning God.

What "belief set" and presuppositions does an Athiest carry with him? I've always considered an atheist as someone who is not a theist.

K

I'll let Kurieuo answer in more detail when he returns, but an atheist believes God doesn't exist. And therefore, an atheist carries all that goes along with that belief.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:[. As I pointed out in a thread elsewhere, Atheism carries with it a "belief set" and certain presuppositions, especially for a person who defines himself as an Atheist compared to say a baby who perhaps truly has no real beliefs on matters concerning God.

What "belief set" and presuppositions does an Athiest carry with him? I've always considered an atheist as someone who is not a theist.

K

I'll let Kurieuo answer in more detail when he returns, but an atheist believes God doesn't exist. And therefore, an atheist carries all that goes along with that belief.

Care to list a few things that goes along with that belief?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:[. As I pointed out in a thread elsewhere, Atheism carries with it a "belief set" and certain presuppositions, especially for a person who defines himself as an Atheist compared to say a baby who perhaps truly has no real beliefs on matters concerning God.

What "belief set" and presuppositions does an Athiest carry with him? I've always considered an atheist as someone who is not a theist.

K

I'll let Kurieuo answer in more detail when he returns, but an atheist believes God doesn't exist. And therefore, an atheist carries all that goes along with that belief.

Care to list a few things that goes along with that belief?

Ken

I guess we could start with objective morality. Without God, one doesn't have a basis for objective morality. Many times I've heard atheist say that they believe in objective morality(OM), but when asked where OM comes from, they can't give a rational answer.
But, I'm not sure what Kurieuo was specifically speaking about though.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:[. As I pointed out in a thread elsewhere, Atheism carries with it a "belief set" and certain presuppositions, especially for a person who defines himself as an Atheist compared to say a baby who perhaps truly has no real beliefs on matters concerning God.

What "belief set" and presuppositions does an Athiest carry with him? I've always considered an atheist as someone who is not a theist.

K

I'll let Kurieuo answer in more detail when he returns, but an atheist believes God doesn't exist. And therefore, an atheist carries all that goes along with that belief.

Care to list a few things that goes along with that belief?

Ken

I guess we could start with objective morality. Without God, one doesn't have a basis for objective morality. Many times I've heard atheist say that they believe in objective morality(OM), but when asked where OM comes from, they can't give a rational answer.
But, I'm not sure what Kurieuo was specifically speaking about though.

Why would you assume a Christian could believe in Objective morality but an atheist could not? I realize you might say God says it so that makes it objective; but that only works for those who respect what God has to say! Suppose I said it and proclaimed it objective? That would only work for those who respect what I have to say; so what's the difference other than the number of people who respect my words vs God's words?

Ken

Opening Post wrote:Atheists often claim to be free thinkers, while embracing that we're the product of entirely physical processes and could not be other than what we are (Determinism).

I'm curious, why is an Atheistic universe deterministic, yet for some reason a Christian one is not? Paul seemed to affirm the idea of determinism many times.

Kenny wrote:Why would you assume a Christian could believe in Objective morality but an atheist could not? I realize you might say God says it so that makes it objective; but that only works for those who respect what God has to say! Suppose I said it and proclaimed it objective? That would only work for those who respect what I have to say; so what's the difference other than the number of people who respect my words vs God's words?

Ken,
If God is, then when I proclaim something objective, which is according to God's morality, is it or is it not objective?

Kenny wrote:
Why would you assume a Christian could believe in Objective morality but an atheist could not?...

Kenny,

Again, you're not comprehending. I never said an atheist couldn't believe in OM. An atheist cannot believe in OM without smuggling in a theistic belief system.

...Suppose I said it and proclaimed it objective?...

Kenny,

That would be subjective morality.

In an atheistic belief system, there's no rational basis for objective morality. An atheist can believe in OM, but he needs to smuggle in a basis for that OM. Thereby undermining the atheistic belief system he is trying to defend, making it irrational. Get it?

1over137 wrote:

Kenny wrote:Why would you assume a Christian could believe in Objective morality but an atheist could not? I realize you might say God says it so that makes it objective; but that only works for those who respect what God has to say! Suppose I said it and proclaimed it objective? That would only work for those who respect what I have to say; so what's the difference other than the number of people who respect my words vs God's words?

Ken,
If God is, then when I proclaim something objective, which is according to God's morality, is it or is it not objective?

It would be for those who believe what God has to say.

Ken

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:
Why would you assume a Christian could believe in Objective morality but an atheist could not?...

Kenny,

Again, you're not comprehending. I never said an atheist couldn't believe in OM. An atheist cannot believe in OM without smuggling in a theistic belief system.

...Suppose I said it and proclaimed it objective?...

Kenny,

That would be subjective morality.

In an atheistic belief system, there's no rational basis for objective morality. An atheist can believe in OM, but he needs to smuggle in a basis for that OM. Thereby undermining the atheistic belief system he is trying to defend, making it irrational. Get it?

First of all there is no such thing as an atheist belief system, but geting past that;why must I smuggle in a theistic belief system in order to believe in OM? Why can't I smuggle in a secular belief system? Please explain.

Ken

Ken

You guys need to define terms.

Objective means to come from outside of the human experience, well to be truly objective it does.
So an objective morality would require a source, the theist has God as the objective source for morality as God is outside of the human experience.

The question for atheists is what is the source of their objective morality, but to be truly objective it must be outside of the human experience and unless they can account for the source, morality remains subjected to human individuals or groups of humans.